The Compendium contains a reprint of the fluff from WD98. So in short: there are conflicting reports, even DW's rules are a bit illogically phrased here. Pick one version that you like.

Alex

Remember that in a conflict of millions, the Astartes have one incredible weakness: their small numbers. An enemy would only have to focus on wearing them down, if necessary through suicide missions. In all honesty, I think Alex/DW Marines could be whittled down too easily.

Which is why, as I mentioned above, the Space Marines ought to avoid this focus, which they would do by clever positioning and evading the enemy main force.

Think of the theoretical example I mentioned in my 2nd post - a hostile army of 5.000 blocking access to a strategic objective. An attacking Imperial Guard Battle Group should deploy with at least as many (but ideally more) troops, because its tactics and equipment/vehicles are incapable of engaging the enemy without both sides becoming locked in a battle of attrition.

A company of Space Marines, on the other hand, would have the speed and resilience to simply sweep aside and push through a small portion of the enemy blockade in a swift and decisive push, whilst avoiding the firepower of the main group.

This is also the connection that makes them "prefer Blitzkrieg warfare", as you put it. The walking colossus / god of war would have no need for such tactics because they could simply crush all those 5.000 enemies on their own. So in a way, the latter is not only bland (imho), it also trivialises an important element of the Space Marine fighting style, and thus their very identity.

I fail to see the contradiction to DW/Alex Marines again - with the one caveat that I don't think technology itself is enough as an equalizer. If that Power Sword was in the hand of a DH/RT/BC/OW PC - sure, why not? If the power sword was in the hand of a no-name mortal NPC, then he'd need Initiative and lots of luck to win. Ideally a PA on top of the power sword.

I guess what I am getting is that a non-name mortal with a Power Sword is still A1 S3 vs. T4. (And in DW, that T4 is Unnatural T4.)

I generally do not make any differences between "no-names" and "player characters" for the sake of realism. A fighter is a fighter. If you want to say that DW/Alex Marines deserve to be more awesome because of plot armour, that'd be okay of course, but this is not what I wanted to talk about at all. In fact, my interpretation of the setting firmly relies on the galaxy not making huge differences between The Chosen Ones (PCs) and the rank and file (NPCs), which is, after all, an artificial classification.

Yes, player characters deserve to be "special", in a way - but imho this should refer to aptitude and perhaps a bit of luck, but not notable physical differences that border or cross the line to the supernatural.

I'm beginning to think that our difference in opinion is very much connected to our preferences on novels and movies in general. When I see a protagonist pulling off stunts that are way beyond what is considered normal, it generally puts me off said movie. Barring some few popcorn action flicks that are not supposed to be taken seriously, of course.

DW/Alex Marines sit at a quite fascinating point between normal human heroes and comic book superheroes. They clearly outshine humans and are more than mere mortals but they are not superheroes/gods either. They are Angels of Death that can be killed and do get killed.

It's exactly this heroic larger-than-life status that potentially makes for fascinating story-telling - once tragedy is induced (see Blood Angels, Dark Angels or even the Crimson Fists).

I guess another difference between us is that I believe that almost everyone can, in theory, achieve this "larger-than-life status" by virtue of the setting and the opportunities it offers.

Look at the likes of Commissar Yarrick, Lord Commander Macharius, Lord Castellan Creed, Saint Praxedes. The list goes on. All of these were heroes in their own right, and your comment somehow makes it seem as if only Space Marines were "worthy" of this status, which vexes me. Especially considering that, in GW's background, some of the aforementioned people have fought alongside Astartes as equals.

Really, the only difference is that you won't have as high a percentage of such heroes amongst the normal human population, as they have to fight without the many benefits heaped upon the Space Marines. Yet given the vast numbers of human population across Imperial space, it should come to no surprise that still you will find a lot of exceptional characters amongst them, and some of them are grouped into organisations of their own.

What you suggest feels as if it'd devalue anything that is not "Space Marines", and to me, this would significantly decrease the allure of the setting as a whole. I prefer to regard 40k as a living world where everyone and everything has a place, rather than the entire franchise revolving solely around the Astartes and "the Imperium being their toolbox".

It's a matter of focus and personal preferences, and I won't argue that the IP as a whole is certainly more catering towards the Space Marines than anyone else, but I still like to view the setting as something more organic, as for me this results in more realism, and thus greater immersion.

In conclusio, I would like to request that you specify your problems with the general power level of Rank 1 DW Marines beyond the gamey quirks of the certain abilities.

Squad Mode as a whole seems problematic by the way they circumvent standard restrictions in the RPG series' combat mechanics, and you have already mentioned by stance regarding Unnaturals. Though, for the record, I am actually okay with the net result of Unnatural Strength (high melee damage), and my opposition to Unnatural Toughness is based more on how TB negates damage rather than their TB being so high.

I don't like Unnaturals in general, though, simply because it feels like a silly mechanic that breaks the scale. Any game should feature a gradual increase in characteristics depending on the type of character or creature. This RPG, however, circumvents this by essentially establishing a second scale that runs parallel to the first. You do not have a "middle ground" between, say, the standard human Toughness and the Space Marines' x2, because it would mess with tests being rolled on a d100 - a character or creature beginning at a characteristic value of ~50 and being granted the customary 4-6 advances would arrive at a value beyond 100, whereas the alternative of a characteristic of 25 coupled with an Unnatural would make said character or creature fail horribly at the most mundane tasks. This is broken. A Space Marine with superhuman strength should not receive a mere +10 bonus compared to some random hive ganger when trying to pry open a locked door, yet this is what happens in DW because the designers were afraid of the alternative.

A smarter solution might have been to lower both the total gap between humans and Astartes as well as to decrease the size of characteristics advances in order to preserve some distance. For example:

Human starting Strength: ~30 (modified by homeworld), with 5 optional advances of +3 each, capping at ~45

Marine starting Strength: ~50 (modified by chapter), with 5 optional advances of +2 each, capping at ~60

Philosophy / design goals: Combine actual Strength ranges of both humans and Astartes on a single scale without pushing Test success too far. Allow exceptional (endgame) humans to draw close to young (starting) Astartes. Space Marines were already augmented with superhuman physiology, so there is less room for them to develop further (+2 advances instead of +3).

An alternative to the above which I have seen suggested by another player would be to simply give Space Marine characters a flat +X bonus to their starting characteristics, and keep Tests from being auto-successes simply by ramping up the challenge. Yes, they may have no trouble kicking open a steel door, but instead of messing with basic mechanics, why not have the GM confront them with a reinforced bulkhead and an appropriate Challenge modifier. This way, characteristics beyond 100 cease being a problem and are only an auto-success where one might argue they should be (because a Space Marine failing to kick open said steel door would be ridiculous).

... sorry, I just noticed I'm being a bit off topic in that I am - in a way - actually arguing for Marines to be stronger than they are right now (although this goes hand in hand with a reduced gap to normal humans). Let me instead turn to Toughness.

Space Marines having a high Toughness is fine. What's not okay is how this has the side effect of making their bodies more resilient than the armour they wear (!), which as you know also resulted in the Deathwatch RPG having to ramp up the stats of both their enemies (so that they can hurt the Marines) and their weapons (so they can hurt each other) and again their enemies (so they have "normal" resistance to said weapons).

I do not like TB stacking with armour (or actually being superior to it, seeing as Pen does not help against it) in general, regardless of the game, it's just that with Space Marines it creates even bigger issues than it already did in DH ("help, my group of Acolytes has become invulnerable to lasguns!"), just like Space Marines also show the problems of DH's characteristics scale and advances.

Games Workshop's own d100 Inquisitor game did what I consider a better job by turning TB into a buffer between Criticals. It makes Space Marines a lot more vulnerable, yet also strengthens perception of them as really tough mofos, because even though they suffer injury after injury in combat, they are capable of staying alive and kicking way longer than normal humans. In my opinion, this is so much better than walking colossi who just laugh at any weapon that doesn't do at least 20 points of damage.

Think of the intro of the first Dawn of War game and the Space Marine raising the banner on that hill, and you know what I mean. That was heroic. In a game of Deathwatch, he'd either just have walked up there completely unharmed, or drop dead in a second because of ridiculous dice from a Horde.

Which is my final criticism with DW I am going to level here. Hordes make for boring combat, Hordes diminish any type of enemy turned into one (by making Magnitude easy to drop), and Hordes are risky because the bonus dice result in an extreme level of randomness with attacks that either don't harm your players at all (because of, again, the way TB works) or run the risk of insta-gibbing them (3 dice could mean anything between 3 and 30, after all).

Which reminds me, I'm gonna have to push my DW GM to try out those NPC Squad Rules I've been tinkering with as an alternative to Hordes ...

Anyways, yeah, that's about my gripe with Deathwatch. I also consider it overcomplicated (wayyy too many minor rules to keep track of and the layout of the book is a mess), and I'm sure you remember my criticism towards the contradictory raw superiority of Astartes weapons, as much as it may have been necessary due to the way their broken characteristics work.

In short, I'd consider Deathwatch a premiere example of what happens when a ruleset is pushed beyond the brink of what it was originally designed to handle. Either the guys at Black Industries should have designed Dark Heresy with a bit more foresight in regards to Astartes, or the guys at FFG should have had enough guts to just cut any connection to DH and design Deathwatch as a true standalone. Here, crossovers don't really work as well as they do in GW's background or on the tabletop, anyways.

Which is also really sad. And ironic, given that the Deathwatch was originally created by GW as a means to have Space Marines operate alongside normal humans.

(also, apologies for the long post, I notice only now that I got carried away a bit. )

The "breathing water" bit was from a GW source? Interesting, I did not know this! Though it clashes with the later report in the Index Astartes, which was written by the same people - but then again, I suppose this might be what you wanted to highlight.

As for the original Rogue Trader fluff, at least Games Workshop still seemed to consider some of it valid, last time they talked about it. The designer notes for the 3rd Edition Codex Witch Hunters mentioned that they went back even to the old RT stuff for background, and referenced that picture with the SoB vs a Rainbow Warrior.

Which is why, as I mentioned above, the Space Marines ought to avoid this focus, which they would do by clever positioning and evading the enemy main force.

Think of the theoretical example I mentioned in my 2nd post - a hostile army of 5.000 blocking access to a strategic objective. An attacking Imperial Guard Battle Group should deploy with at least as many (but ideally more) troops, because its tactics and equipment/vehicles are incapable of engaging the enemy without both sides becoming locked in a battle of attrition.

A company of Space Marines, on the other hand, would have the speed and resilience to simply sweep aside and push through a small portion of the enemy blockade in a swift and decisive push, whilst avoiding the firepower of the main group.

This is also the connection that makes them "prefer Blitzkrieg warfare", as you put it. The walking colossus / god of war would have no need for such tactics because they could simply crush all those 5.000 enemies on their own. So in a way, the latter is not only bland (imho), it also trivialises an important element of the Space Marine fighting style, and thus their very identity.

This isn't entirely realistic. Enemy fortifications should normally include cleared ground, artillery and flak. To remove an entrenched anyway will require way more boots on the ground in Imperial Guard terms. Breaking sieges doesn't merely rely on speed. It can also rely on the near impervious armour of the Land Raider. Or the Demolisher Cannon of the Vindicator. That depends all on circumstances. The Astartes also use their superior armour to go where normal troops have trouble going. And I don't believe that DW Marines could crush entrenched hordes with a combined mag of 500 or 1,000 or so all on their own. Especially under such cirrcumstances were their speed isn't sufficient to reach the enemy frontline without coming under heavy fire.

See, for me, the Astartes are a combination of resilience, firepower, skill, gear and millenia-old tried-and-proven tactics. Their enormous strength is derived from a combination of this. In the TT, they are often hailed as very versatile troops.

I generally do not make any differences between "no-names" and "player characters" for the sake of realism. A fighter is a fighter. If you want to say that DW/Alex Marines deserve to be more awesome because of plot armour, that'd be okay of course, but this is not what I wanted to talk about at all. In fact, my interpretation of the setting firmly relies on the galaxy not making huge differences between The Chosen Ones (PCs) and the rank and file (NPCs), which is, after all, an artificial classification.

Yes, player characters deserve to be "special", in a way - but imho this should refer to aptitude and perhaps a bit of luck, but not notable physical differences that border or cross the line to the supernatural.

I'm beginning to think that our difference in opinion is very much connected to our preferences on novels and movies in general. When I see a protagonist pulling off stunts that are way beyond what is considered normal, it generally puts me off said movie. Barring some few popcorn action flicks that are not supposed to be taken seriously, of course.

No, actually it is actually similar here (though that might also have to do with me not liking many contemporary actors). I normally prefer playing low-powered campaigns. Also, I enjoy games more when my PCs are low level and they have most of the road still ahead of them. Becoming a DW GM has forced me to look at things from a completely new angle though.

Let me just add that "special heroes" (PC or NPC) is entirely consistent with Games Workshop fluff and crunch ever since. I started with WFB 3E and it was the same there, even worse than today. DW is a bit about ascending from Champion to Major Hero.

Squad Mode as a whole seems problematic by the way they circumvent standard restrictions in the RPG series' combat mechanics, and you have already mentioned by stance regarding Unnaturals. Though, for the record, I am actually okay with the net result of Unnatural Strength (high melee damage), and my opposition to Unnatural Toughness is based more on how TB negates damage rather than their TB being so high.

I don't like Unnaturals in general, though, simply because it feels like a silly mechanic that breaks the scale. Any game should feature a gradual increase in characteristics depending on the type of character or creature. This RPG, however, circumvents this by essentially establishing a second scale that runs parallel to the first. You do not have a "middle ground" between, say, the standard human Toughness and the Space Marines' x2, because it would mess with tests being rolled on a d100 - a character or creature beginning at a characteristic value of ~50 and being granted the customary 4-6 advances would arrive at a value beyond 100, whereas the alternative of a characteristic of 25 coupled with an Unnatural would make said character or creature fail horribly at the most mundane tasks. This is broken. A Space Marine with superhuman strength should not receive a mere +10 bonus compared to some random hive ganger when trying to pry open a locked door, yet this is what happens in DW because the designers were afraid of the alternative.

A smarter solution might have been to lower both the total gap between humans and Astartes as well as to decrease the size of characteristics advances in order to preserve some distance. For example:

Human starting Strength: ~30 (modified by homeworld), with 5 optional advances of +3 each, capping at ~45

Marine starting Strength: ~50 (modified by chapter), with 5 optional advances of +2 each, capping at ~60

Philosophy / design goals: Combine actual Strength ranges of both humans and Astartes on a single scale without pushing Test success too far. Allow exceptional (endgame) humans to draw close to young (starting) Astartes. Space Marines were already augmented with superhuman physiology, so there is less room for them to develop further (+2 advances instead of +3).

I think the gap between Marines and mortals is about right, I have rather a problem with the Solo Modes pushing that even further. You criticism regarding Strength tests is valid but it doesn't mean one has to dispose of Unnatural Strength(x2), only that one has to model its effects on Strength tests more skillfully.

Regarding Squad Mode abilities being out of turn order... it seems a bit unrealistic indeed and I think it's partially because they couldn't think of better mechanics without repeating stuff from talents. They wanted something that went beyond talents, it seems. I like it for underlining the difference between Astartes and mortals though. Exactly what you don't like. Astartes can break limitations in combat that (starting) characters from DH and RT are subject to. If anything, I'd like to see the Arch-Militant get some special moves in RT (although I am not up-to-date to current crunch there, I play a Navigator in RT).

An alternative to the above which I have seen suggested by another player would be to simply give Space Marine characters a flat +X bonus to their starting characteristics, and keep Tests from being auto-successes simply by ramping up the challenge. Yes, they may have no trouble kicking open a steel door, but instead of messing with basic mechanics, why not have the GM confront them with a reinforced bulkhead and an appropriate Challenge modifier. This way, characteristics beyond 100 cease being a problem and are only an auto-success where one might argue they should be (because a Space Marine failing to kick open said steel door would be ridiculous).

This is what a GM in DW has to do. He has to come up with demanding challenges to players which incur -lots. This also serves to underline the heroic status of the characters. But that alone would not be enough. He should also encourage players to try things that their DH Rank 2 characters couldn't pull off. Players should ask for things that might not be considered in the rules but that are conceivable in the game world. Or asking to get around a game rule with a -60 test (if it is plausible enough, that is). "The Crit says I am knocked prone. Can I do a Agility -40 to try to keep standing?" "Why, sure! Go ahead!" This of course makes PCs even more powerful but as a GM you can ramp up the challenge in any game.

The point is: to make the attributes/skills count in DW, instead of having perma-auto success, you need test with -X modifiers.

... sorry, I just noticed I'm being a bit off topic in that I am - in a way - actually arguing for Marines to be stronger than they are right now (although this goes hand in hand with a reduced gap to normal humans). Let me instead turn to Toughness.

Space Marines having a high Toughness is fine. What's not okay is how this has the side effect of making their bodies more resilient than the armour they wear (!), which as you know also resulted in the Deathwatch RPG having to ramp up the stats of both their enemies (so that they can hurt the Marines) and their weapons (so they can hurt each other) and again their enemies (so they have "normal" resistance to said weapons).

I do not like TB stacking with armour (or actually being superior to it, seeing as Pen does not help against it) in general, regardless of the game, it's just that with Space Marines it creates even bigger issues than it already did in DH ("help, my group of Acolytes has become invulnerable to lasguns!"), just like Space Marines also show the problems of DH's characteristics scale and advances.

Games Workshop's own d100 Inquisitor game did what I consider a better job by turning TB into a buffer between Criticals. It makes Space Marines a lot more vulnerable, yet also strengthens perception of them as really tough mofos, because even though they suffer injury after injury in combat, they are capable of staying alive and kicking way longer than normal humans. In my opinion, this is so much better than walking colossi who just laugh at any weapon that doesn't do at least 20 points of damage.

Think of the intro of the first Dawn of War game and the Space Marine raising the banner on that hill, and you know what I mean. That was heroic. In a game of Deathwatch, he'd either just have walked up there completely unharmed, or drop dead in a second because of ridiculous dice from a Horde.

Against an Ork Horde? Not wise to go into melee. In my universe, the number of Orks would have probably been a multiple of this (although, again, not in melee). How many individuals a mag 30 horde represents is entirely abstract, that's the beauty of it. You can scale it to your liking.

As for Toughness, I told you before that I interpret it soaking damage completely as: "slighttly wounded but not severely enough push the character closer to death". If you hurt yourself with a needle, your TB soaks that damage. A small cut with a knife? Probably the same.

Which is my final criticism with DW I am going to level here. Hordes make for boring combat, Hordes diminish any type of enemy turned into one (by making Magnitude easy to drop), and Hordes are risky because the bonus dice result in an extreme level of randomness with attacks that either don't harm your players at all (because of, again, the way TB works) or run the risk of insta-gibbing them (3 dice could mean anything between 3 and 30, after all).

Which reminds me, I'm gonna have to push my DW GM to try out those NPC Squad Rules I've been tinkering with as an alternative to Hordes ...

You can only partially blame FFG for it being boring. For a universe in which there is only war, authors and players alike tend to know little about company-level warfare... and seem to be not very interested in it. Which is why flanking and suppression play so little role. What do you know about how to effectively employ tanks in actual warfare? Given the lack of interest in actual tactics, the game has to refrain to Hollywood-style action. With heroes wading through hordes and killing mooks left and right.

As for the 3d10, this isn't a problem. getting, say, 33 damage pre-soak is a 1 in 1000 event and not an insta-gib normally. deduct 16 for armour and toughness and it's a survival hit. I like the randomness. That is what facing a hail of bullets in PA should be like.

And I'll have a look at your rules later on.

Anyways, yeah, that's about my gripe with Deathwatch. I also consider it overcomplicated (wayyy too many minor rules to keep track of and the layout of the book is a mess), and I'm sure you remember my criticism towards the contradictory raw superiority of Astartes weapons, as much as it may have been necessary due to the way their broken characteristics work.

In short, I'd consider Deathwatch a premiere example of what happens when a ruleset is pushed beyond the brink of what it was originally designed to handle. Either the guys at Black Industries should have designed Dark Heresy with a bit more foresight in regards to Astartes, or the guys at FFG should have had enough guts to just cut any connection to DH and design Deathwatch as a true standalone. Here, crossovers don't really work as well as they do in GW's background or on the tabletop, anyways.

Which is also really sad. And ironic, given that the Deathwatch was originally created by GW as a means to have Space Marines operate alongside normal humans.

(also, apologies for the long post, I notice only now that I got carried away a bit. )

1. As for rules, what I like about the system is the way you can discover new combinations of talents, abilities, etc. This is not unlike 40K TT. It keeps you thinking about it quite a bit (just like the TT) and that keeps the game also fresh. I think a few parts could have been cut down though... Codex Solo Mode Abilities... idk... i mean it's heroic to push your strength even further but... then you get even further improvements for that. Maybe they should have cut that out and attacked more mechanics to demeanours. A demi-god demeanour mode for a round or two when things get desperate and TPK looms. Think of the DOW intro.

2. Reduce all Astartes weapons damage by 1 or 2. Up all mortal weapons by 2. This solves two problems for you at once.

3. You can let Deathwatch characters operate next to heroic mortals or mortal hordes. There will likely remain a significant gap between Astartes and Battle Sisters though.

So, the gist of your post is: you think the gap between Astartes and normal humans is too big. I think it's just about right.

Alex

This isn't entirely realistic. Enemy fortifications should normally include cleared ground, artillery and flak.

Ah, but I wasn't talking about fortifications. If you want, though, we can assume such a scenario as well - and as you have already mentioned, the Space Marines are equipped to handle such tasks, too. So I still don't see the problem, given that both you and I have been saying the same thing here. The difference continues to be the Marines' limits, and to what degree they can circumvent them.

Let me just add that "special heroes" (PC or NPC) is entirely consistent with Games Workshop fluff and crunch ever since. I started with WFB 3E and it was the same there, even worse than today. DW is a bit about ascending from Champion to Major Hero.

That's a difference in levels of experience, though, not an arbitrary gap between player and non-player characters. Or, in other words, in GW fluff and crunch a hero is a hero because of what he or she has already done in the past, not because of the out-of-universe fact that they may be portrayed by a player as opposed to the GM. After all, the tabletop does not even know "player characters".

Regarding Squad Mode abilities being out of turn order... it seems a bit unrealistic indeed and I think it's partially because they couldn't think of better mechanics without repeating stuff from talents. They wanted something that went beyond talents, it seems. I like it for underlining the difference between Astartes and mortals though. Exactly what you don't like.

I also don't like it because it doesn't strike me as very realistic from a background PoV. In DW you have a team of warriors who have never before in their life fought alongside each other, quite likely hailing from different Chapters with a different culture, and suddenly everyone is supposed to "synchronise" with each other on a level that far surpasses what a squad of Only War characters can do, even though the latter hail from the same culture and had at the very least several weeks of training together?

I know it says "Codex patterns" on some of those, but the player characters still lack any actual "feeling" for what they can expect of their new squadmates, and even Codex Chapters (which several of the options open to DW PCs are not) often employ distinctively different tactics.

As far as I interpret Squad Modes, they ought to be the result of several years or even decades of fighting alongside each other and knowing how your battle brothers would (re)act. It's not something you ought to pick up in a couple hours. This does not even have to do anything with Space Marines - only insofar as it would be likely to see this effect in persistent squads of a single Chapter, due to their increased survivability and extended biological lifespan.

But then again, that's just what occurred to me as I read this stuff. Could just be a matter of interpretation again.

I for one think they went way too far in "underlining the difference between Astartes and mortals", at least in DW. As per their current rules in RT, not even Orks and Eldar are as different from baseline humans, and this is something to think about!

As for Toughness, I told you before that I interpret it soaking damage completely as: "slighttly wounded but not severely enough push the character closer to death". If you hurt yourself with a needle, your TB soaks that damage. A small cut with a knife? Probably the same.

We're not talking about needles here, though, but futuristic laser weapons and armour-piercing ammunition. The problem is confounded with there also being actual Wounds in addition to TB. This implies you are not wounded until you suffer a Wound . And only after all your Wounds are used up you actually start to be impaired at least a little.

My Deathwatch character could take an (Astartes) plasma gun shot straight to the naked head, and at maximum damage (implying a full-on bull's eye hit) he'd not even get a headache but merely lose a couple Wounds. In fact, he'd lose so few Wounds that he could take another plasma gun shot right in the face and he'd still not have an Injury.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone could think this is an accurate representation of combat, Space Marine or no.

And it's not much better in Dark Heresy. As I said earlier, Space Marines merely show these problems even more clearly by doubling their effects.

A clever GM or player can, within limitations, work around these issues with some smart narration about near-misses and grazing wounds, but this would mean deviating a bit from the RAW. In this case, the RPG's level of detail (having injuries) simply works against it (because said injuries do not actually occur until after multiple layers of unrealistic protection).

As for the 3d10, this isn't a problem. getting, say, 33 damage pre-soak is a 1 in 1000 event and not an insta-gib normally. deduct 16 for armour and toughness and it's a survival hit. I like the randomness. That is what facing a hail of bullets in PA should be like.

How about 3d10+12 Pen 4 from a bunch of Tau troops?

But I have to admit, I am also biased against Horde rules starting with the simple fact that it gives weapons magical bonus damage, even where they would be unable to harm the characters otherwise. Just like I detest noticeable mechanical differences between PCs and NPCs, I also do not like them between normal enemies and Hordes. It feels too arbitrary, too much like an artificial intervention into what the world would consider normal, if you get my drift.

Hordes were a very cool idea (nothing wrong with a bit of "Hollywood action" from time to time, depending on the campaign's theme), but personally I find the execution flawed.

A demi-god demeanour mode for a round or two when things get desperate and TPK looms. Think of the DOW intro.

I thought that's what Fate Points are for.

But as I said, in my book Space Marines are not the only heroes in the setting, so I don't see as much of a need to give them more "hero perks" than other heroes. What sets them apart is their genetical enhancement, and that is something every rank-and-file NPC Marine has.

2. Reduce all Astartes weapons damage by 1 or 2. Up all mortal weapons by 2. This solves two problems for you at once.

Or just give everyone similar weapons, like GW did in their d100 game (I'm gonna propose this in a little something I am still working on). There is no true need to give them more damage, after all, that is just one of several possible interpretations/opinions - and it's really not as if superhuman strength and toughness would somehow not already suffice to set them apart.

So, the gist of your post is: you think the gap between Astartes and normal humans is too big. I think it's just about right.

Pretty much. Normal humans already have weird rules that cease to stop working at higher levels of play. Deathwatch just pushes it further beyond the line, and it shows that stuff just starts to break (I present exhibits A and B ).

It makes for less compatibility between the systems (which is sad, as groups may have trouble recreating famous/popular types of party constellations from TT fluff), and to people like me it feels too much like superman instead of superhuman.

But as has already been said, this is a matter of preferences. I'm just here defending my interpretation, as you made it sound as if it "wouldn't make sense". In fairness, though, looking back I may have expressed similar reservations about yours.

At least it has been an interesting and friendly-minded talk so far!

The Compendium contains a reprint of the fluff from WD98. So in short: there are conflicting reports, even DW's rules are a bit illogically phrased here. Pick one version that you like.

Alex

You've just proven my point

The "breathing water" bit was from a GW source? Interesting, I did not know this! Though it clashes with the later report in the Index Astartes, which was written by the same people - but then again, I suppose this might be what you wanted to highlight.

Bingo, Glad someone got it

Ah, but I wasn't talking about fortifications. If you want, though, we can assume such a scenario as well - and as you have already mentioned, the Space Marines are equipped to handle such tasks, too. So I still don't see the problem, given that both you and I have been saying the same thing here. The difference continues to be the Marines' limits, and to what degree they can circumvent them.

I was merely making the point that lightning attacks aren't everything. Also, I think that chapters like the Blood Angels rely more on lightning attacks than the Imperial Fists. I could imagine the Imperial Fists in long-standing conflict. They are just too **** stubborn to let go.

That's a difference in levels of experience, though, not an arbitrary gap between player and non-player characters. Or, in other words, in GW fluff and crunch a hero is a hero because of what he or she has already done in the past, not because of the out-of-universe fact that they may be portrayed by a player as opposed to the GM. After all, the tabletop does not even know "player characters".

In most cases RPGs are about young heroes (or criminals!) trying to become full-blown legendary heroes (crime bosses). And that usually involves reaching legendary power levels/stats/etc.

Is it realistic? No. Is it fiction-inspired storytelling that most gamers seek? I believe so.

I also don't like it because it doesn't strike me as very realistic from a background PoV. In DW you have a team of warriors who have never before in their life fought alongside each other, quite likely hailing from different Chapters with a different culture, and suddenly everyone is supposed to "synchronise" with each other on a level that far surpasses what a squad of Only War characters can do, even though the latter hail from the same culture and had at the very least several weeks of training together?

I know it says "Codex patterns" on some of those, but the player characters still lack any actual "feeling" for what they can expect of their new squadmates, and even Codex Chapters (which several of the options open to DW PCs are not) often employ distinctively different tactics.

As far as I interpret Squad Modes, they ought to be the result of several years or even decades of fighting alongside each other and knowing how your battle brothers would (re)act. It's not something you ought to pick up in a couple hours. This does not even have to do anything with Space Marines - only insofar as it would be likely to see this effect in persistent squads of a single Chapter, due to their increased survivability and extended biological lifespan.

But then again, that's just what occurred to me as I read this stuff. Could just be a matter of interpretation again.

I for one think they went way too far in "underlining the difference between Astartes and mortals", at least in DW. As per their current rules in RT, not even Orks and Eldar are as different from baseline humans, and this is something to think about!

I have no problem with the Codex Squad Mode abilities. To me, that is instant common ground among codex-adherent chapters. Stuff that has been drilled into them a billion times, straight from the Codex. I would agree that Space Wolves might find it harder to participate. They probably could based on pure instinct... maybe at an additional Cohesion cost, as with Forging the Bond. You know the greatest football players do function together even when they have not played together before, such is there level of understanding "what needs to be done". That is often obvious in situation in play.

By the way, I have yet another very cool idea about Space Wolves: being pack-based, they should have no Solo Mode abilities at all. Solo Mode should be bad for them, unless... Lone Wolves. SW should be more effective in Squad mode, at least once familiar with the others. What do you think?

And I think comparing statlines leads a bit astray.

We're not talking about needles here, though, but futuristic laser weapons and armour-piercing ammunition. The problem is confounded with there also being actual Wounds in addition to TB. This implies you are not wounded until you suffer a Wound . And only after all your Wounds are used up you actually start to be impaired at least a little.

My Deathwatch character could take an (Astartes) plasma gun shot straight to the naked head, and at maximum damage (implying a full-on bull's eye hit) he'd not even get a headache but merely lose a couple Wounds. In fact, he'd lose so few Wounds that he could take another plasma gun shot right in the face and he'd still not have an Injury.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone could think this is an accurate representation of combat, Space Marine or no.

And it's not much better in Dark Heresy. As I said earlier, Space Marines merely show these problems even more clearly by doubling their effects.

A clever GM or player can, within limitations, work around these issues with some smart narration about near-misses and grazing wounds, but this would mean deviating a bit from the RAW. In this case, the RPG's level of detail (having injuries) simply works against it (because said injuries do not actually occur until after multiple layers of unrealistic protection).

Now you're getting too literal. You shouldn't lose hit point unless you get hit?

Wound points are an abstraction to measure those wounds that bring you closer to death, etc. Lesser wounds do not get recorded/get ignored.

Plasmaguns are underpowered. If you look at my favourite thread for reference, you'll find that Plasma should do about 3d10+10. Assuming TB 8, that is 3d10+2. Normally enough to be seriously wounded. On an slightly above average roll your PC should enter critical territory. A 2nd hit to the head would be really bad.

(Source: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/37819-adjusting-dw-weapon-stats-more-to-the-40k-tabletop-stats/ )

Also, let's keep in mind that in 40K roleplay weapons are all a bit underpowered to decrease lethality. I told you to add 2 to all damages if you don't like it.

How about 3d10+12 Pen 4 from a bunch of Tau troops?

But I have to admit, I am also biased against Horde rules starting with the simple fact that it gives weapons magical bonus damage, even where they would be unable to harm the characters otherwise. Just like I detest noticeable mechanical differences between PCs and NPCs, I also do not like them between normal enemies and Hordes. It feels too arbitrary, too much like an artificial intervention into what the world would consider normal, if you get my drift.

Hordes were a very cool idea (nothing wrong with a bit of "Hollywood action" from time to time, depending on the campaign's theme), but personally I find the execution flawed.

Yeah, you shouldn't get caught by a full squad of Fire Warriors. That goes without saying.

The additional d10s are an abstraction. This is necessary if you want to streamline combat with that mane participants. You naturally lose accuracy. And in my DW NPCs can almost always harm NPCs. I grant those who would have otherwise not chance to penetrate RF. So in my game, the combined chance for RF is rolled into the bonus damage dice.

Or just give everyone similar weapons, like GW did in their d100 game (I'm gonna propose this in a little something I am still working on). There is no true need to give them more damage, after all, that is just one of several possible interpretations/opinions - and it's really not as if superhuman strength and toughness would somehow not already suffice to set them apart.

If you add +2 to Mortal and reduce Astartes by 1 or 2, you have similar weapons. And you get rid of the reduced lethality inherent in 40K RP.

Also, I have changed my mind in the meantime wrt SoB Bolters... I'm fine, if they get Astartes-grade Bolters. I'm not sure where they would fit in with those and PA (gameline-wise) but it's okay.

Basically I didn't like them when they came out first (Senorita Sororita, really?) but that was more because I didn't like 2E/3E at all. (Also too obvious pandering the female gamers.) Those acid-trip colour schemes of all minis were god-awful and the opposite of grimdark. But the SoBs got some cool art and paint jobs since then. So I guess I am past that!

Pretty much. Normal humans already have weird rules that cease to stop working at higher levels of play. Deathwatch just pushes it further beyond the line, and it shows that stuff just starts to break (I present exhibits A and B ).

It makes for less compatibility between the systems (which is sad, as groups may have trouble recreating famous/popular types of party constellations from TT fluff), and to people like me it feels too much like superman instead of superhuman.

But as has already been said, this is a matter of preferences. I'm just here defending my interpretation, as you made it sound as if it "wouldn't make sense". In fairness, though, looking back I may have expressed similar reservations about yours.

At least it has been an interesting and friendly-minded talk so far!

I find running speed much more hilarious. But, you know, that's really inaccurate modeling on some sideshow aspect of the game and any sane GM will simply overrule it and go by his own ideas. That is not really important to me and no evidence that the game is broken. A simple adjustment of the carrying capacity tables, etc. could fix things.

Me, I still think if the Astartes merely a cut above a Stormtrooper, it'd be like... why bother? Go buy some best-quality stormtroopers instead!

It's also this other thing I mentioned. When playing OW, it's about playing the little guys in dire circumstances, showing great courage and becoming heroes, whatever. In DW, you already have heroes - by nature. They are the Emperor's angels. They are morte than mortal. While the DoW Intro is all good and fine, the cool part isn't about the marine defying the odds and putting up that standard. Imagine if they marine had brushed aside all Orks and had done so. It's so cool because of the sacrifice of this marine. Great heroes like the Astartes must be surrounded like tragedy.

Let me briefly point you the thread I linked to in the earlier post. I wouldn't run it anymore like that but instead I would give every PC in a Deathwatch 2.0 a thing called "Tragic potential". The player could choose that and would keep it secret from the others. For a BA it might be the Black Rage, for a Storm Warden the temptation of Chaos, etc. It's nothing that has to manifest -but it might- and the players might have to struggle against it.

One thing that has emerged for me out of this debate with you is that it has helped me sharpen my take on the setting. Also, I enjoy it when someone can respectfully disagree and take a stand for their view with arguments that cannot be easily countered.

Alex

I was merely making the point that lightning attacks aren't everything. Also, I think that chapters like the Blood Angels rely more on lightning attacks than the Imperial Fists. I could imagine the Imperial Fists in long-standing conflict. They are just too **** stubborn to let go.

Point taken, though I would consider a Marine siege to rely on speed as well. There's a reason the Astartes do not have any superheavies and why even their artillery is built for rapid repositioning. From GW's Liber Apocapyptica, Forces of the Space Marines:

"Although they are far too few to form the sole fighting force of the Imperium, the speed and fury with which Space Marines can react means that very often they can crush an attack before it has had a chance to develop into a major threat. At the very least they can contain it long enough for the ponderous might of the Imperial Guard to arrive and obliterate any remaining resistance.

In large-scale battles the extraordinary fighting qualities of the Adeptus Astartes mean that they are often called upon to spearhead an attack, or to fill a vulnerable gap while the larger and less mobile formations of the Imperial Guard can be brought into action. Space Marine tanks and armoured fighting vehicles are geared towards this role, with the Predator and hulking Land Raider battle tanks providing heavy support for the assaulting infantry. Even their artillery, the Whirlwind, is rapid-moving, laying down a cover of supporting fire for the advancing Space Marines.

In addition to these operations, Space Marines excel at all sorts of special missions, such as lightning raids behind enemy lines, infiltration attacks to capture and hold vital positions, and tunnel fights in enemy-held cities. They fight with surgical precision, using their swift Rhinos, Drop Pods and Thunderhawk Gunships to strike at the heart of the enemy, eradicating the opposition and carrying out the tasks they are called upon to perform with ruthless efficiency."

In short, the Guard may hit EXTRA-hard, but the Space Marines hit hard and so fast that their attack often cannot be parried, so to speak, allowing them to exploit weak points with unrivalled efficiency.

Said article also talked a bit about the casualty rates which you think would be too devastating to occur:

"In addition to these standard force organisations, it is not uncommon for Space Marines to adopt unique battle formations for a single campaign. Sometimes these formations will be forced upon the Space Marines because of high levels of battle casualties, or due to a lack of a piece of vital equipment, and at other times a unique formation will be devised by a commander to fulfil a specific battlefield role. During the Scouring of Hexdragon XXIV in 345.M38, a situation arose where all three of these circumstances occurred in a single battle. Elements of the newly arrived Iron Shields Chapter had suffered severe casualties amongst their Assault Marines during the assault on the Despot of Hexdragon’s battle fortress. With all members of the Chapter’s Battle Companies fully engaged, Commander Shakirax ordered the troops of the 10th Scout Company to be issued with jump packs, so that they could fulfil the role instead. Despite suffering casualties in excess of 90%, the Scouts overwhelmed the defenders of the Obsidian Tower, and the fortress fell."

I suppose we can treat this as the counter-example to your earlier reference from the 3E Marine Codex. As I said, once you start looking beyond an army's own codex, you're bound to discover some less favourable (or more objective) incidents, simply because codices have a tendency to feature those legendary battles that define the best that faction can aspire to be. Knowing both is important to get a good idea of the middle ground, or so I believe - though of course it's still all a matter of interpretation.

In most cases RPGs are about young heroes (or criminals!) trying to become full-blown legendary heroes (crime bosses). And that usually involves reaching legendary power levels/stats/etc.

Is it realistic? No. Is it fiction-inspired storytelling that most gamers seek? I believe so.

Oh, I agree! What I don't agree on is the extreme levels Deathwatch in particular takes this to. We already seem to be of one mind in regards to some of its features such as certain squad modes - they are an example of what I mean, even though my threshold still seems to lie a bit lower than yours.

In essence, I like a very specific mix of (fantastic) realism and heroism, which means that for me there are limits of when "epic" becomes "too silly" or quite simply "bland". But that is simply a matter of taste.

By the way, I have yet another very cool idea about Space Wolves: being pack-based, they should have no Solo Mode abilities at all. Solo Mode should be bad for them, unless... Lone Wolves. SW should be more effective in Squad mode, at least once familiar with the others. What do you think?

I think that'd makes sense, within the scope of the RAW (I still don't like Squad and Solo Mode in general, though like with Hordes, I feel this is an idea that had great potential, but I just don't agree with its execution). Alternatively, you could make "Lone Wolving" the standard, simply because the SW has trouble fitting in with the others - with the option to either unlock or purchase a sort of Familiarity trait later on, once the squad has grown close.

It makes me remember the TT rules in WD #258 about Deathwatch Kill-teams and how the article mentioned that Space Wolves don't tend to get recruited because "it is essential they all follow a similar doctrine", which means a strong preference for Codex Chapters.

Now you're getting too literal. You shouldn't lose hit point unless you get hit?

Wound points are an abstraction to measure those wounds that bring you closer to death, etc. Lesser wounds do not get recorded/get ignored.

My issue with the system is that those wounds that supposedly "bring me closer to death" do not have any ill effects associated with them. The kind of weaponry that gets deployed on the battlefields of the 41st millennium should not cause "lesser wounds I can ignore" - it does the Grimdark™ nature of the setting a disservice to trivialise them.

Yes, I too would not want characters to get insta-gibbed in an RPG. But that's why I appreciate the idea in GW's Inquisitor game so much: it has (I think) about the same level of lethalty (as in: people dying ), but "fixes" that weird not-hurting-phase by spreading the injuries over the entire range of a character's hitpoints instead of only the last 10.

I really want to give that a try some day, just to see how it feels.

The additional d10s are an abstraction. This is necessary if you want to streamline combat with that mane participants. You naturally lose accuracy. And in my DW NPCs can almost always harm NPCs. I grant those who would have otherwise not chance to penetrate RF. So in my game, the combined chance for RF is rolled into the bonus damage dice.

Did I mention how I don't like RF as another "magic damage increase" too?

I wouldn't say that additional d10s are a necessary abstraction - in fact, my opposition to this idea was the very reason for why I came up with the Squad rules I linked earlier. They are, in essence, a "hybrid" between Horde rules and how autofire is resolved in the RPG, using Degrees of Success to determine "squad hits".

Feel free to give them a glance; I'd certainly appreciate input! As of now, they are still un-playtested.

Basically I didn't like them when they came out first (Senorita Sororita, really?) but that was more because I didn't like 2E/3E at all. (Also too obvious pandering the female gamers.)

Really? I thought it was more like nunsploitation. It's not as if only (or even mostly) female gamers like "chicks with guns". You're talking about an entire subgenre of movies here!

(yes, I may or may not have recently watched "Cherry 2000" on Netflix)

Also, Sisters were already present in the old Rogue Trader book, though they indeed did not get their own Codex until 2E (they had rules before tho).

I find running speed much more hilarious. But, you know, that's really inaccurate modeling on some sideshow aspect of the game and any sane GM will simply overrule it and go by his own ideas. That is not really important to me and no evidence that the game is broken. A simple adjustment of the carrying capacity tables, etc. could fix things.

Me, I still think if the Astartes merely a cut above a Stormtrooper, it'd be like... why bother? Go buy some best-quality stormtroopers instead!

Stuff like weight and running etc might not be as important, but it's a sign that the original rules were obviously not created with characters of this magnitude in mind. So why should it be different for the characteristics - the basis for said other tables - themselves? There's a reason DW Space Marines get their very own version of Genestealers etc.

The Dark Heresy core rulebook featured a clear-cut table for the characteristics range, with examples for every couple points right up to 100 ("The Willpower of a daemon"). I wish they'd stuck to this concept.

As to why you'd bother with Space Marines instead of Storm Troopers? Because in GW fluff, there's only 1 Storm Trooper for every 100 Space Marines, because Storm Troopers are not wearing powered armour, because Storm Troopers are more or less useless without backup from the Imperial Guard, because they cannot deploy as fast as an Astartes cruiser, and because they lack those many small gadgets that the Marines have built into their bodies, such as the ability to fight for several days without pause etc.

I feel you're still giving way too much attention to strength and toughness, as if those were the only two things making the Space Marines special, and thus possibly feeling a need to scale them up to extreme levels in order to justify their role in the setting.

It's also this other thing I mentioned. When playing OW, it's about playing the little guys in dire circumstances, showing great courage and becoming heroes, whatever. In DW, you already have heroes - by nature. They are the Emperor's angels. They are morte than mortal. While the DoW Intro is all good and fine, the cool part isn't about the marine defying the odds and putting up that standard. Imagine if they marine had brushed aside all Orks and had done so. It's so cool because of the sacrifice of this marine. Great heroes like the Astartes must be surrounded like tragedy.

See, to me, brushing aside all those Orks would have cheapened the moment. There is sacrifice specifically because that Marine is vulnerable, yet he defies his injuries and, by sheer power of will, delays his fate, pulling through and raising a last marker of defiance against the greenskin horde before finding the Emperor's peace.

And again, I don't see the Space Marines as being the only heroes in the setting. By himself, a young Space Marine is nothing but a teenage boy who went through a bit of surgery before someone tossed him a gun. Similar to a Guard conscript who got issued a lasgun and flak armour, this raises the character's odds of becoming a hero, but he must still make a name for himself, even though his public appearances will benefit from the reputation of his Chapter. Honouring this reputation by adding to its fame - this is the real challenge of a freshly made Astartes. Because true heroes are not born on a surgery table, they are made on the fields of blood.

Now, in Deathwatch, I understand that the characters are supposed to be veterans (else they would not have been picked for this organisation), so my comments should be taken for Space Marines in general rather than just DW characters. A player character's background offers ample opportunity for a few minor heroics in the past to establish a certain minimum rep. The challenge to do your Chapter proud still remains - the Deathwatch is merely another league where you get to compete against the champions from elsewhere in the galaxy.

Also, I am still convinced that Space Marines are quite mortal, too.

I still like your idea about "Tragic potential", though. Reminds me of the Tycho story, yet again.

And I also agree about your last paragraph!

Point taken, though I would consider a Marine siege to rely on speed as well. There's a reason the Astartes do not have any superheavies and why even their artillery is built for rapid repositioning. From GW's Liber Apocapyptica, Forces of the Space Marines:

"Although they are far too few to form the sole fighting force of the Imperium, the speed and fury with which Space Marines can react means that very often they can crush an attack before it has had a chance to develop into a major threat. At the very least they can contain it long enough for the ponderous might of the Imperial Guard to arrive and obliterate any remaining resistance.

In large-scale battles the extraordinary fighting qualities of the Adeptus Astartes mean that they are often called upon to spearhead an attack, or to fill a vulnerable gap while the larger and less mobile formations of the Imperial Guard can be brought into action. Space Marine tanks and armoured fighting vehicles are geared towards this role, with the Predator and hulking Land Raider battle tanks providing heavy support for the assaulting infantry. Even their artillery, the Whirlwind, is rapid-moving, laying down a cover of supporting fire for the advancing Space Marines.

In addition to these operations, Space Marines excel at all sorts of special missions, such as lightning raids behind enemy lines, infiltration attacks to capture and hold vital positions, and tunnel fights in enemy-held cities. They fight with surgical precision, using their swift Rhinos, Drop Pods and Thunderhawk Gunships to strike at the heart of the enemy, eradicating the opposition and carrying out the tasks they are called upon to perform with ruthless efficiency."

In short, the Guard may hit EXTRA-hard, but the Space Marines hit hard and so fast that their attack often cannot be parried, so to speak, allowing them to exploit weak points with unrivalled efficiency.

Said article also talked a bit about the casualty rates which you think would be too devastating to occur:

"In addition to these standard force organisations, it is not uncommon for Space Marines to adopt unique battle formations for a single campaign. Sometimes these formations will be forced upon the Space Marines because of high levels of battle casualties, or due to a lack of a piece of vital equipment, and at other times a unique formation will be devised by a commander to fulfil a specific battlefield role. During the Scouring of Hexdragon XXIV in 345.M38, a situation arose where all three of these circumstances occurred in a single battle. Elements of the newly arrived Iron Shields Chapter had suffered severe casualties amongst their Assault Marines during the assault on the Despot of Hexdragon’s battle fortress. With all members of the Chapter’s Battle Companies fully engaged, Commander Shakirax ordered the troops of the 10th Scout Company to be issued with jump packs, so that they could fulfil the role instead. Despite suffering casualties in excess of 90%, the Scouts overwhelmed the defenders of the Obsidian Tower, and the fortress fell."

I suppose we can treat this as the counter-example to your earlier reference from the 3E Marine Codex. As I said, once you start looking beyond an army's own codex, you're bound to discover some less favourable (or more objective) incidents, simply because codices have a tendency to feature those legendary battles that define the best that faction can aspire to be. Knowing both is important to get a good idea of the middle ground, or so I believe - though of course it's still all a matter of interpretation.

Well, I was looking at a siege more from a regular 40K battle standpoint... more or less without the superheavies. But, of course, compared to a Titan the Astartes tend to be quick! Not sure if the Guard hits extra hard but they bring volume of fire to the table, no doubt. Again, see the TT. As for the quote, sure. We don't know the scope of the fortress defenses, etc. I believe the vagueness is deliberate by GW to allow everyone for enough wiggle room.

By the way, I believe that DW Kill-Teams fit much more the role of classical Spec Ops (still no disguising though ).

Oh, I agree! What I don't agree on is the extreme levels Deathwatch in particular takes this to. We already seem to be of one mind in regards to some of its features such as certain squad modes - they are an example of what I mean, even though my threshold still seems to lie a bit lower than yours.

In essence, I like a very specific mix of (fantastic) realism and heroism, which means that for me there are limits of when "epic" becomes "too silly" or quite simply "bland". But that is simply a matter of taste.

Like I said, it was something for me to get into. Deathwatch has forced me to look at gaming from a new angle. I don't consider one of my player's Space Wolf wading through a company of rebel PDF silly. He's killing them off round-by-round while they can only hope for an occasional lucky strike/shot. It's exactly what I want to explore. Probably because, as I have said, Spec Ops RPGs themselves are an old hat to us here.

And Space Marines are a bit bland for other reasons than power level. That's why you potentially need to inject tragedy into Deathwatch.

My issue with the system is that those wounds that supposedly "bring me closer to death" do not have any ill effects associated with them. The kind of weaponry that gets deployed on the battlefields of the 41st millennium should not cause "lesser wounds I can ignore" - it does the Grimdark™ nature of the setting a disservice to trivialise them.

Yes, I too would not want characters to get insta-gibbed in an RPG. But that's why I appreciate the idea in GW's Inquisitor game so much: it has (I think) about the same level of lethalty (as in: people dying ), but "fixes" that weird not-hurting-phase by spreading the injuries over the entire range of a character's hitpoints instead of only the last 10.

I really want to give that a try some day, just to see how it feels.

You know where the mechanic comes form - a certain dark fantasy RPG. I mean, you're coming from a simulationist end. I don't think these games are about that. Dark Heresy would have never been this big hit if it had been simulationist. Instead, it has become a viable alternative to D&D gamers.

The best combat system I have ever played was Harnmaster (1E at least). Fantasy setting but it was brutal with insta-gib a very real possibility.

Did I mention how I don't like RF as another "magic damage increase" too?

I wouldn't say that additional d10s are a necessary abstraction - in fact, my opposition to this idea was the very reason for why I came up with the Squad rules I linked earlier. They are, in essence, a "hybrid" between Horde rules and how autofire is resolved in the RPG, using Degrees of Success to determine "squad hits".

Feel free to give them a glance; I'd certainly appreciate input! As of now, they are still un-playtested.

RF is the equivalent to DnD's Critical.

I only glanced over it and would reserve feedback until I have had a closer look. My own thinking travels in an opposite direction, partially inspired by the grimdark podcast. We have a RPG based on tabletop game that allows doing combat on the company to batallion-level (there's even skirmish game scope with Kill-Team missions). Said RPG contains a special mechanic for resolving combat against platoons, companies, batallions. Why? Why not have a conversion of characters back to the TT for resolution? Now that might take some dedicated rules (especially since we have movie marines) but it might be fun.

Really? I thought it was more like nunsploitation. It's not as if only (or even mostly) female gamers like "chicks with guns". You're talking about an entire subgenre of movies here!

(yes, I may or may not have recently watched "Cherry 2000" on Netflix)

Also, Sisters were already present in the old Rogue Trader book, though they indeed did not get their own Codex until 2E (they had rules before tho).

Oh, I know they were. It was just totally lame in that context. GW had just done its first price hike, the colour pattern had changed to LSD, they had begun pandering to 14-year olds and then also in my perception to female gamers. Noone here played the SOBs. In my mind the execution was kinda lame (like most of 2E/3E). We kept playing RT rules for the most part of 2E/3E. 3E in particular was a dumbing down of rules which didn't appeal to us back then.

Stuff like weight and running etc might not be as important, but it's a sign that the original rules were obviously not created with characters of this magnitude in mind. So why should it be different for the characteristics - the basis for said other tables - themselves? There's a reason DW Space Marines get their very own version of Genestealers etc.

The Dark Heresy core rulebook featured a clear-cut table for the characteristics range, with examples for every couple points right up to 100 ("The Willpower of a daemon"). I wish they'd stuck to this concept.

As to why you'd bother with Space Marines instead of Storm Troopers? Because in GW fluff, there's only 1 Storm Trooper for every 100 Space Marines, because Storm Troopers are not wearing powered armour, because Storm Troopers are more or less useless without backup from the Imperial Guard, because they cannot deploy as fast as an Astartes cruiser, and because they lack those many small gadgets that the Marines have built into their bodies, such as the ability to fight for several days without pause etc.

I feel you're still giving way too much attention to strength and toughness, as if those were the only two things making the Space Marines special, and thus possibly feeling a need to scale them up to extreme levels in order to justify their role in the setting.

Hold on. A huge part of it is due to DH not modeling stuff correctly. I mean... a bolter with only 1d10+5? Sure, a cheap copy perhaps but not a Godwyn pattern. And once DH characters hit Rank 6 things start to get messy because they have so many talents and skills that it's hard to remember them all. So DH itself doesn't scale very well either! DH wasn't exactly modeled with too much foresight.

Train more Stormtroopers, give them PA, take away the ships and support from the Astartes.

And the Astartes need this extreme level of Toughness in order to wade through hordes of enemies. So, if that's the Marines you envision (and I do), it makes perfect sense.

See, to me, brushing aside all those Orks would have cheapened the moment. There is sacrifice specifically because that Marine is vulnerable, yet he defies his injuries and, by sheer power of will, delays his fate, pulling through and raising a last marker of defiance against the greenskin horde before finding the Emperor's peace.

And again, I don't see the Space Marines as being the only heroes in the setting. By himself, a young Space Marine is nothing but a teenage boy who went through a bit of surgery before someone tossed him a gun. Similar to a Guard conscript who got issued a lasgun and flak armour, this raises the character's odds of becoming a hero, but he must still make a name for himself, even though his public appearances will benefit from the reputation of his Chapter. Honouring this reputation by adding to its fame - this is the real challenge of a freshly made Astartes. Because true heroes are not born on a surgery table, they are made on the fields of blood.

Now, in Deathwatch, I understand that the characters are supposed to be veterans (else they would not have been picked for this organisation), so my comments should be taken for Space Marines in general rather than just DW characters. A player character's background offers ample opportunity for a few minor heroics in the past to establish a certain minimum rep. The challenge to do your Chapter proud still remains - the Deathwatch is merely another league where you get to compete against the champions from elsewhere in the galaxy.

Also, I am still convinced that Space Marines are quite mortal, too.

I still like your idea about "Tragic potential", though. Reminds me of the Tycho story, yet again.

And I also agree about your last paragraph!

See, but what I am saying is that if the marines don't brush aside the Orks but one of them still makes it to the hilltop relatively intact, it's still not that epic.

"By himself, a young Space Marine is nothing but a teenage boy who went through a bit of surgery before someone tossed him a gun." ...and who killed a Barb Dragon in close combat, for example.

And, yeah, if Astartes weren't mortal DW wouldn't be fun to play, no?

Alex

[EDIT: I don't think the DH Genestealer are much more accurate (or even very different) than the DW Genestealers. Razor Sharp is in any case better modeling than Tearing.]

This deserves its own post. Here an example how one can develop a monster for all systems, bridging the gap between mortals and Astartes. As a short explanation: it's okay if GS are not very resilient. A single 80% dodge per round is enough for defense. Felling(1) can do a lot on offense and works for all systems well. Created on-the-fly, might not be 100% correct.

Alex Genestealers (Usable with all 40K RP Games)

WS 65 BS - S 55 T 55 Ag 60(12) Int 35 Per 56 WP 45 Fel -

Move: 12/24/36/72 Wounds: 15

Awareness+10, Climb+10, Concealment, Dodge+10, Silent Move, Swim+10.

Ambidextrous, Fearless, Hard Target, Leap Up, Lightning Attack, Lightning Reflexes, Swift Attack.

Dark Sight, Fear(2), Improved Natural Weapons, Multiple Arms, Natural Armour, Unnatural Agility (x2), Unnatural Speed, Tyranid.

Reinforced Chitin (All 4).

Rending Claws (1d10+7 R; Pen 7, Felling(1), Razor Sharp).

Biomorphs, Brood Telepathy, Genestealer’s Kiss.

Alex

You know where the mechanic comes form - a certain dark fantasy RPG. I mean, you're coming from a simulationist end. I don't think these games are about that. Dark Heresy would have never been this big hit if it had been simulationist. Instead, it has become a viable alternative to D&D gamers.

The best combat system I have ever played was Harnmaster (1E at least). Fantasy setting but it was brutal with insta-gib a very real possibility.

Ah, I don't really need simulationism. I am currently also playing a Dragon Age campaign , and it has one of the simplest rulesets I've ever seen (this is actually hailed as one of its features - being "back to the roots" if you will). But my problem with Dark Heresy, Deathwatch, etc is that it tries to be semi-simulationist by having a gazillion rules for everything, but then still comes across as unrealistic and (at higher levels of play) somewhat broken.

When I first started playing DH, I absolutely loved its detail and "weight", but I suppose over the time this perception has mellowed somewhat when I started to discover more and more holes in the system. This is just my opinion, though, and I've begun to ponder a whole series of house rules to plug the worst of them. Emperor knows when I get to implement them, though - for the time being that's just an on-and-off hobby for me.

RF is the equivalent to DnD's Critical.

Yeah, but in DnD armour prevents hits altogether, it does not "soften" damage you actually receive (at least this was the case when I last played it). So in D&D you don't have that weird effect that a weapon that seems impossible to punch through your armour with its default profile still does so because of RF, as is the case in these 40k RPGs.

If it were up to me, I suppose I would "fix" it by stating that an attack needs to cause at least 1 Wound to be eligible for RF bonus damage.

Of course, Righteous Fury can also simply be fluffed as "hitting a weak spot", but in that case it ought to halve the target's AP or something, rather than adding a random amount of bonus damage that neither takes the type of weapon nor the type of protection into account.

It's probably just another layer of abstraction, but it leads to weird results. Such as (in its newest version) little kids with rocks injuring a Space Marine, if we really want to drive the point home. And arguably, weapons that regularly kill people in the TT and fluff should not rely on RF in the RPG to harm their target. This goes back to my earlier comment about trivialising 40k weaponry.

But we already seem to agree that all the weapons are too weak.

Hold on. A huge part of it is due to DH not modeling stuff correctly. I mean... a bolter with only 1d10+5? Sure, a cheap copy perhaps but not a Godwyn pattern. And once DH characters hit Rank 6 things start to get messy because they have so many talents and skills that it's hard to remember them all. So DH itself doesn't scale very well either! DH wasn't exactly modeled with too much foresight.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying: "And it's not much better in Dark Heresy. As I said earlier, Space Marines merely show these problems even more clearly by doubling their effects."

DH feels just right during the first half of levels, but then it begins to suffer from core mechanics shutting each other down. Like the example with Acolytes invulnerable to lasgun fire I mentioned. That just shouldn't happen. And as DW is built on this system, but with an even higher power level, we just get to experience these issues even more.

Granted, the most glaring of these problems occur only when you mix power levels (such as when having high level DH characters fight low level mooks, or when mixing DH and DW characters), but mixing these aspects may often feel appropriate for the setting and campaign, so it should be somewhat better supported by the RAW. That's my feelings on the subject, anyways.

Train more Stormtroopers, give them PA, take away the ships and support from the Astartes.

And the Astartes need this extreme level of Toughness in order to wade through hordes of enemies. So, if that's the Marines you envision (and I do), it makes perfect sense.

Yet perhaps the Storm Troopers are so few because their requirements are so high. Perhaps the IoM would not be able to produce that much powered armour because it's a rare and expensive technology. And you are still missing out all the minor advantages from the other implants (somewhat confirming my earlier suspicion ).

Besides, if you move everything but the surgery from the Space Marines to the Storm Trooper regiment, would you really save much in terms of resources?

As for fighting hordes of enemies, I suppose the devil is in the detail. For me, it'd be appropriate for 10 Space Marines to fight a horde of 100 enemies. For you, it sounds more like you'd want them to fight 1.000.

Coincidentally, I have Rogal Dorn himself on my side as far as this ratio is concerned.

...and who killed a Barb Dragon in close combat, for example.

Well, it's really not as if other cultures in 40k would not have similar traditions, so I don't think this qualifies for making the Space Marines "more heroic". In fact, I'd argue the opposite - if you make it too easy for them to win their fights, they are actually less heroic because their enemies didn't stand a chance. They'd be the schoolyard bullies, and whoever opposes them without all those built-in advantages is the true hero (at least for their own people). "David versus Goliath."

Ah, I don't really need simulationism. I am currently also playing a Dragon Age campaign , and it has one of the simplest rulesets I've ever seen (this is actually hailed as one of its features - being "back to the roots" if you will). But my problem with Dark Heresy, Deathwatch, etc is that it tries to be semi-simulationist by having a gazillion rules for everything, but then still comes across as unrealistic and (at higher levels of play) somewhat broken.

When I first started playing DH, I absolutely loved its detail and "weight", but I suppose over the time this perception has mellowed somewhat when I started to discover more and more holes in the system. This is just my opinion, though, and I've begun to ponder a whole series of house rules to plug the worst of them. Emperor knows when I get to implement them, though - for the time being that's just an on-and-off hobby for me.

Is that really true? WFRP started off as one alternative to AD&D. DH is a modernized version of the original WFRP rules. I don't really think simulation is here the goal, just a compromise between realism and simplicity. And I don't consider DH very complicated - that's why it has been success. It's no more difficult than D&D 3.x!

When I get a new RPG, I start to take apart its system from the first day! I have discovered for myself the application of the Sparsamkeitsprinzip in recent years though. See the mathhammer thread in the RT forum! In short, I only wanna plug the worst offenders, preferably in a simple way. Models are always inaccurate in one regard or the other, you got to live with that. It doesn't improve the gameplay experience too much either, once you get beyond the worst offenders. These efforts distract from the fluffier parts of the game - storyline, roleplaying, atmosphere, etc.

Yeah, but in DnD armour prevents hits altogether, it does not "soften" damage you actually receive (at least this was the case when I last played it). So in D&D you don't have that weird effect that a weapon that seems impossible to punch through your armour with its default profile still does so because of RF, as is the case in these 40k RPGs.

If it were up to me, I suppose I would "fix" it by stating that an attack needs to cause at least 1 Wound to be eligible for RF bonus damage.

Of course, Righteous Fury can also simply be fluffed as "hitting a weak spot", but in that case it ought to halve the target's AP or something, rather than adding a random amount of bonus damage that neither takes the type of weapon nor the type of protection into account.

It's probably just another layer of abstraction, but it leads to weird results. Such as (in its newest version) little kids with rocks injuring a Space Marine, if we really want to drive the point home. And arguably, weapons that regularly kill people in the TT and fluff should not rely on RF in the RPG to harm their target. This goes back to my earlier comment about trivialising 40k weaponry.

But we already seem to agree that all the weapons are too weak.

Ahem, when you roll a nat 20 in D&D, you hit automatically (and cause a threat). Armour does not help against that, no? So what you have in D&D is that you can hurt a Giant with your bare hands if you roll a 20.

And if you're bothered by rock damage, then simply change the rules for rock throwing. For me, I give out RF whenever an NPC can't hurt a PC but I think there is an off-chance they could. Example: a single hormagaunt versus a Marine in PA. The hormagaunt will get RF from me, the kid with the stone won't. I don't need to cast everything into a rule that will hold under every game condition. Fixed rules just help with maintaining overall consistency in the way the game works.

And while weapons are too weak, I am not sure if it makes for a better gamign experience for players if you up the damage. Realism/immersion versus gaming concerns.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying: "And it's not much better in Dark Heresy. As I said earlier, Space Marines merely show these problems even more clearly by doubling their effects."

DH feels just right during the first half of levels, but then it begins to suffer from core mechanics shutting each other down. Like the example with Acolytes invulnerable to lasgun fire I mentioned. That just shouldn't happen. And as DW is built on this system, but with an even higher power level, we just get to experience these issues even more.

Granted, the most glaring of these problems occur only when you mix power levels (such as when having high level DH characters fight low level mooks, or when mixing DH and DW characters), but mixing these aspects may often feel appropriate for the setting and campaign, so it should be somewhat better supported by the RAW. That's my feelings on the subject, anyways.

To me, Deathwatch Rank 1 feels about right. I mean, the PCs should really have some more skills (Demolition, Pilot(Personal, Skimmer, Ground), Exotic Weapon(Needler). And no Codex Solo Mode abilities at Rank 1. It scales a bit badly Rank 5 or 6 onwards, I think.

And, yeah, mixing is only an afterthought in the design of the games. DW, for example, is lacking the stats for the non-Astartes versions of all kinds of weapons! Without DH/RT/BC/OW, you'd be screwed as GM!

Yet perhaps the Storm Troopers are so few because their requirements are so high. Perhaps the IoM would not be able to produce that much powered armour because it's a rare and expensive technology. And you are still missing out all the minor advantages from the other implants (somewhat confirming my earlier suspicion ).

Besides, if you move everything but the surgery from the Space Marines to the Storm Trooper regiment, would you really save much in terms of resources?

As for fighting hordes of enemies, I suppose the devil is in the detail. For me, it'd be appropriate for 10 Space Marines to fight a horde of 100 enemies. For you, it sounds more like you'd want them to fight 1.000.

Coincidentally, I have Rogal Dorn himself on my side as far as this ratio is concerned.

(As for Rogal Dorn, there is still some wiggle room because it's unclear what kind of mortal soldiers he had in mind when he said this. Conscripts - or Stormtroopers? )

Yeah, fair point. Still you could simply ignore PA and Bolter and just pour more resources into creating Stormtroopers if they can do the same job (as has been pointed out in this thread to me).

And wrt horde-fighting... it depends. On the quality of the enemy and if the Astartes can take on these 1,000 piecemeal or if parts of the 1,000 have to cover their flanks, etc. But yeah, a Kill-Team of 4 or 5, is capable of taking a 100 standard PDF troopers in my game. Unless they are in a fortified positions with heavy weapons and enough clear ground, etc. There is no easy answer to what is managable for the PCs, it depends on circumstances. A 100 men with lasguns can do lots of damage too! The beauty of the horde system is that the scale is freely choosable by the GM. One GM might run an encounter narratively with 10 men per magnitude point, another with 2 men per mag.

Well, it's really not as if other cultures in 40k would not have similar traditions, so I don't think this qualifies for making the Space Marines "more heroic". In fact, I'd argue the opposite - if you make it too easy for them to win their fights, they are actually less heroic because their enemies didn't stand a chance. They'd be the schoolyard bullies, and whoever opposes them without all those built-in advantages is the true hero (at least for their own people). "David versus Goliath."

Yeah but in the grim darkness of the far future, Goliath wins and eradicates the whole David tribe. Various xeno races wish the Astartes were merely schoolyard bullies!

Again: the PCs in Deathwatch are heroes to begin with. They don't have to do anything to become a "true hero". They are the embodied, iconic manifestations of the Emperor's will to conquer and rule. The Deathwatch game cannot be about becoming a hero. If anything, the PCs actions are adding to legacy only. Furthermore, due to being Deathwatch, their deeds will be even largely unsung.

Also, saving entire worlds is largely impersonal and abstract and will leave the players less moved than saving a cool NPC they have met. This is one of the problems in running DW. That's why I say: the normal mindset for RPGs does not apply to DW. Normal RPGs are about a group of unknowns becoming heroes - see D&D. Deathwatch is for more about enforcing ("bullying") the Emperor's will unto a hostile galaxy.

Most of the 40K RP games involve an element of being on a "power trip". Brandishing the name of the Inquisition and intimidating some Administratum bureaucrat into wreck. Lance strikes onto hive spines and demanding delivery of 10,000 slaves from orbit. Deathwatch puts this power tripping center stage - with a new degree of brutality. Bolter pr0n is nothing but such power tripping after all! So, in my mind, enforcing the Emperor's will by sheer unspeakably brute force unto others is probably a very central element in DW. Now it would be boring if it was only about that... which is why, for example, it's important to inject an element of tragedy. And more than one element of rivalry too.

In a sense, DW isn't about the PCs at all - as they are merely vessels for the Emperor's cause - whether heroically or unheroically. What matters is that his will prevails only. DW requires a complete paradigm-shift in thinking from normal games... which explains why a number of people have difficulty with playing it.

Alex

Ah, I don't really need simulationism. I am currently also playing a Dragon Age campaign , and it has one of the simplest rulesets I've ever seen (this is actually hailed as one of its features - being "back to the roots" if you will). But my problem with Dark Heresy, Deathwatch, etc is that it tries to be semi-simulationist by having a gazillion rules for everything, but then still comes across as unrealistic and (at higher levels of play) somewhat broken.

When I first started playing DH, I absolutely loved its detail and "weight", but I suppose over the time this perception has mellowed somewhat when I started to discover more and more holes in the system. This is just my opinion, though, and I've begun to ponder a whole series of house rules to plug the worst of them. Emperor knows when I get to implement them, though - for the time being that's just an on-and-off hobby for me.

Is that really true? WFRP started off as one alternative to AD&D. DH is a modernized version of the original WFRP rules. I don't really think simulation is here the goal, just a compromise between realism and simplicity. And I don't consider DH very complicated - that's why it has been success. It's no more difficult than D&D 3.x!

Sorry to nitpick but DH is a modernised version of WFRP 2nd edition, not 1st. 1st edition used a variety of dice and featured far more broken down skill sets and characteristics, lending it far more to the simulation end of things. 2nd Edition streamlined the game by making it only use D10s, abstracting many more of the skills and SIGNIFICANTLY reducing the lethality (a trend that has continued into its DH counterpart). WFRP 1st was one of the only games besides the oregon trail where 'you have died of dysentry' was a common character epitaph.

It was never an alternative to D&D in any mechanical sense. That statement is only true in that due to D&Ds popularity any contemporary RPG could be consisdered an alternative to it. WFRPs biggest distinguishing factor was that it made a huge effort to move away from the idea of 'dungeon bashing' and focus more on the problems of a person within that world.

Case in point you average starting character in D&D is a level 1 fighter/rogue/wizard/whatever armed with a basic sword and some armour. Your average starting character in WFRP 1st is an entertainer/rat catcher/beggar/peasent armed with a small but viscious dog, some rags and whatever loose change he had on him that he stuck in a sock and used as a bludgeon when things went to hell.

Well, if you want to nitpick, modernization is a transitive relationship. As for the damage system, it surely was an alternative to the D&D system. If you can't see hit points in wounds, I can't help ya.

Alex

By that logic any RPG that isn't woundless is an alternative to DND, and thats just wrong. Even Traveller used hit points.

Yes modernisation is a transitative system, but the core mechanics are derived from the games second edition. The only thing that is still remotely similar is the fact its still a percentile based D100 system, and the core mechanic still derived weapon damage as weapon +STR and soak and Armour + Toughness. Even initiative order is determined differently, using a characteristic that no longer exists. You can also no longer die from a +1 critical hit. This list is almost endless, whereas the differences between 2nd edition and the current one are very minor in most cases, the biggest change being the DoS mechanic.

If you actually take the time to think about what I'm saying this actually supports your argument. WFRP 1 was much more concerned with simulation, as the game has gone through various iterations into the current FFG line the game has become more abstracted. Dying in a ditch of starvation or exposure is a legitimate threat in WFRP, its not something you should even have to consider in DW, and nor should it be due to the nature of the characters involved.

Ahem, when you roll a nat 20 in D&D, you hit automatically (and cause a threat). Armour does not help against that, no? So what you have in D&D is that you can hurt a Giant with your bare hands if you roll a 20.

True, although this is alleviated somewhat by a 20 on a d20 being harder to roll than a 10 on a d10, and by DnD Crits taking your weapon into account. Double damage suddenly seems a lot less threatening if you're attacking with bare hands - as opposed to the BI/FFG 40k RPGs and their completely randomised effects. Especially given that, in DnD, enemies like Giants have a lot more hit points than characters around here have Wounds.

And if you're bothered by rock damage, then simply change the rules for rock throwing.

Or, rather than creating special cases and exceptions, change the general rules for injury and/or RF in an effort to create something that's more suitable for all occurrences. A good system should focus on the latter rather than the former, if only to create a more consistent feeling for combat.

Why do you like the current form of RF so much? What's wrong with the alternatives?

And while weapons are too weak, I am not sure if it makes for a better gamign experience for players if you up the damage. Realism/immersion versus gaming concerns.

That's why I thought GW's idea was so clever. Higher chances for injury, yet about the same lethalty!

It's a matter of opinion, though. Some people just find wading through enemy fire unharmed more attractive. I find there is no heroism without (carefully balanced) risk.

And, yeah, mixing is only an afterthought in the design of the games. DW, for example, is lacking the stats for the non-Astartes versions of all kinds of weapons! Without DH/RT/BC/OW, you'd be screwed as GM!

Huh? The weapons are no problem - you could simply toss everyone the "Astartes version". In fact, this would increase compatibility in that everyone would at least do comparable ranged damage. If you wanted to play non-Marines in Deathwatch whilst only having the DW book, I'd say a bigger issue would be that it doesn't have any non-Marine classes and advancement schemes.

I'm assuming someone wanting to "mix" games would have access to the books of both game lines. The problem with mixing is that the gap between characters transcends what would have been necessary in terms of background and mechanics.

Look at Black Crusade for comparison. Though even there the gap still seems far too large - a byproduct of the way this line of games deals with TB, and a problem that could not be eliminated without redefining the injury mechanics. This is why I had high hopes for DH2, thinking that they'd finally drop TB (or adopt the TB from GW's Inquisitor game) as part of their changes. Alas, of all the things they changed, this was not amongst the list.

(As for Rogal Dorn, there is still some wiggle room because it's unclear what kind of mortal soldiers he had in mind when he said this. Conscripts - or Stormtroopers? )

Yeah, fair point. Still you could simply ignore PA and Bolter and just pour more resources into creating Stormtroopers if they can do the same job (as has been pointed out in this thread to me).

Well, he said "other troops", so I'd assume he was thinking of the average kind of human soldier.

Also, what is it with your "mortals"?

As for Storm Troopers, I thought Cail and me have listed more than enough reasons for why Marines are better? Has there perhaps been some misunderstanding in what we tried to point out?

Now, I suppose a case could be made by simply throwing Storm Troopers at a problem until it goes away, as the Imperium sometimes (read: often) does with Guardsmen, though I really don't think the higher casualty rates are more efficient than just keeping the Marines do their thing.

You are also missing one critical truth: The Imperium is at war. Even if it would be more efficient to shift focus to Storm Troopers by ceasing support for the Marines, it'd mean decades of transition during which neither force could deploy at full strength - something that could see a lot of worlds fall to enemy hands.

And you are still missing the fact that the Imperium is about tradition and political stability, not about efficiency. Didn't you know efficiency leads to heresy?

In a sense, DW isn't about the PCs at all - as they are merely vessels for the Emperor's cause - whether heroically or unheroically. What matters is that his will prevails only. DW requires a complete paradigm-shift in thinking from normal games... which explains why a number of people have difficulty with playing it.

I don't think players actually need universal recognition of their deeds. Your other comment of being on a "power trip" seems far closer to the truth. As you have pointed out, the players are almost always treated as heroes, anyways, simply by virtue of being Space Marines. What does it matter that this reputation has nothing to do with them, personally?

If you think Space Marine PCs are automatically heroes just by being Space Marines, then that's just something we'll have to agree to disagree on. As I said, to me, heroes are made , they are not being born. And neither do I agree that heroes need special rules to justify their status, rather than requiring the players to come up with actions to justify it.

That their deeds remain "largely unsung" seems about as much of a disadvantage as the Space Wolves being werewolves in space, in that this is often flaunted as a drawback, yet somehow actually is why people want to play them. Because sometimes, bad things can be regarded as "cool", though at this point I'd stop seeing them as bad from an OOC PoV.

Either way, I believe we've nailed down the source of our disagreement: You want to have a game where you play the big hero, supported by special rules that lift you far atop lesser beings; I want to have a game where I can become a hero by virtue of my own actions, supported by my character's natural perks. The difference between both stances (a slightly different focus) is small, but it leads to a significant gap in how we perceive things. It may be strengthened, however, by me not looking just at the Space Marines and treating the rest of the setting as revolving around them, but rather seeing the Astartes as merely one piece of a much larger setting, and my desire to see each of these pieces play an important role for the bigger picture.

That a number of people have difficulty playing DW is probably a result of two things:

- DW has a huge focus on dungeoncrawling, which may not be everyone's cup 'o tea

- ... especially in terms of Horde combat, which you yourself have described as boring in another thread

- Space Marines are very difficult to RP, and most often end up being regarded as bland and/or played like Everyday Joe (an issue they share with Commissars, Battle Sisters, and all Xenos in Rogue Trader; it's not easy playing a culture so very different from one's own)

- perhaps a lot of people also don't need that "power trip" you mentioned; I for one think DW would be more interesting if it'd be more gritty, thus making every combat more intense

Or, rather than creating special cases and exceptions, change the general rules for injury and/or RF in an effort to create something that's more suitable for all occurrences. A good system should focus on the latter rather than the former, if only to create a more consistent feeling for combat.

Why do you like the current form of RF so much? What's wrong with the alternatives?

I think it's an okay mechanic. Not particularly realistic but it allows a single lucky shot to take down or seriously hurt much stronger enemies. Maybe that lasgun hit the Hive Tyrant in the mouth to hurt it. This goes especially if you use multiple exploding dice. It allows for epic damage with a single attack. That underlines the epic nature of the PCs and rolling really high damage with a really good roll also tends to make players happy. Not to mention that I need it in my correction of the vehicle rules, if you remember. So I am not a big fan of it but it works well enough for me.

Look at Black Crusade for comparison. Though even there the gap still seems far too large - a byproduct of the way this line of games deals with TB, and a problem that could not be eliminated without redefining the injury mechanics. This is why I had high hopes for DH2, thinking that they'd finally drop TB (or adopt the TB from GW's Inquisitor game) as part of their changes. Alas, of all the things they changed, this was not amongst the list.

You're not really hoping to see an Inquisitor reloaded, do you? I doubt they will implement that because of one poster trying to sell it without pause! But maybe I'm wrong.

Well, he said "other troops", so I'd assume he was thinking of the average kind of human soldier.

Also, what is it with your "mortals"?

As for Storm Troopers, I thought Cail and me have listed more than enough reasons for why Marines are better? Has there perhaps been some misunderstanding in what we tried to point out?

Now, I suppose a case could be made by simply throwing Storm Troopers at a problem until it goes away, as the Imperium sometimes (read: often) does with Guardsmen, though I really don't think the higher casualty rates are more efficient than just keeping the Marines do their thing.

You are also missing one critical truth: The Imperium is at war. Even if it would be more efficient to shift focus to Storm Troopers by ceasing support for the Marines, it'd mean decades of transition during which neither force could deploy at full strength - something that could see a lot of worlds fall to enemy hands.

And you are still missing the fact that the Imperium is about tradition and political stability, not about efficiency. Didn't you know efficiency leads to heresy?

Mortals is a handy term to use.

Well, I have been told here how 10 Stormtroopers could do the same as my Vincian. Not that Oblivion's Edge (and therefore FFG) agrees. In OE, a whole company of them is meant to die on that Hive Ship, while the KT is meant to live. Just sayin'.

Yeah, I still don't buy that Astartes would be worth it if they weren't on DW's power level.

I don't think players actually need universal recognition of their deeds. Your other comment of being on a "power trip" seems far closer to the truth. As you have pointed out, the players are almost always treated as heroes, anyways, simply by virtue of being Space Marines. What does it matter that this reputation has nothing to do with them, personally?

If you think Space Marine PCs are automatically heroes just by being Space Marines, then that's just something we'll have to agree to disagree on. As I said, to me, heroes are made , they are not being born. And neither do I agree that heroes need special rules to justify their status, rather than requiring the players to come up with actions to justify it.

Given the rituals that an Aspirant has to go through, every Initiate Astartes, every Scout is already a hero. I can safely say this for the Crimson Fists and I know it's similar for Space Wolves, Ultramarines, etc. Ross Watson did have the Knights of the Round Table in mind when he designed Deathwatch. Every Rank 1 PC in DW is already a hero - to his homeworld people and in the eyes of every emperor-fearing citizen of the IoM.

I think you haven't got your head around this yet and are still stuck in the normal gaming paradigma. If you want to earn hero status , OW is the game to go for. In DW, your PC has already earned it way before game start.

Either way, I believe we've nailed down the source of our disagreement: You want to have a game where you play the big hero, supported by special rules that lift you far atop lesser beings; I want to have a game where I can become a hero by virtue of my own actions, supported by my character's natural perks.

Exactly. This is exactly the difference between DW and OW.

The difference between both stances (a slightly different focus) is small, but it leads to a significant gap in how we perceive things. It may be strengthened, however, by me not looking just at the Space Marines and treating the rest of the setting as revolving around them, but rather seeing the Astartes as merely one piece of a much larger setting, and my desire to see each of these pieces play an important role for the bigger picture.

I see this less from a simulationist POV. I see this more as having more diversity in gaming experience. I like DW being very different from normal RPGs, specifically OW.

That a number of people have difficulty playing DW is probably a result of two things:

- DW has a huge focus on dungeoncrawling, which may not be everyone's cup 'o tea

- ... especially in terms of Horde combat, which you yourself have described as boring in another thread

- Space Marines are very difficult to RP, and most often end up being regarded as bland and/or played like Everyday Joe (an issue they share with Commissars, Battle Sisters, and all Xenos in Rogue Trader; it's not easy playing a culture so very different from one's own)

- perhaps a lot of people also don't need that "power trip" you mentioned; I for one think DW would be more interesting if it'd be more gritty, thus making every combat more intense

#3 is the biggest problem. There is little intrigue around the characters. In other games, you have non-predictable life stories which have shaped the PC a certain way. Part of the fun is finding out what makes other player's PCs tick and why. My Scum in DH has the terrible secret that he spent his youth on 2 different "prison planets". The other players have been told that he comes form the underhives of Scintilla (where he spent his last years before getting drafted into the Big I).

I mean, yeah... SW and DA are at odds with each other, DA hunt the Fallen... but it's all kinda foreseeable in contrast. That is the biggest problem. Perhaps it might make sense to explore what has caused the PC to develop his personal demeanour... but even that is probably not that intriguing unless you have a really good story to tell and let it influence your PCs behaviour/tactics repeatedly.

#4 isn't so much of a problem as every 40K RP player seems to enjoy power-tripping on some level. In DW, it merely gets moved brutally to center-stage. As for grittier combat, I hope my new Critical/True Grit rules will help to stage that. I want my PCs to be riddled with Critical Wounds and still keep fighting!

Alex

I think it's an okay mechanic. Not particularly realistic but it allows a single lucky shot to take down or seriously hurt much stronger enemies. Maybe that lasgun hit the Hive Tyrant in the mouth to hurt it.

Sure. And maybe that kid with a rock managed to throw it directly into the Hive Tyrant's eye.

Nah. Damage potential should take the weapon that deals said damage into account. I don't mind critical hits, but they ought to make normal injuries more severe - not up the damage potential of a weapon that would normally be unable to harm its target.

Matter of preferences, though. I can see how you came to look at it from another way, and can accept that you just like it more. I'm only going by what my gut is telling me, too, after all.

This might also be connected to my belief that total damage should be determined by the attack test (=accuracy) rather than an additional dice roll (=completely random) - which I feel is a leftover from DnD in the sense that a lot of P&P game developers do it this way simply because it has become some sort of industry standard.

You're not really hoping to see an Inquisitor reloaded, do you? I doubt they will implement that because of one poster trying to sell it without pause! But maybe I'm wrong.

Naah! Inquisitor had its own problems. I'm just thinking that the way it dealt with injuries was very clever, and that this is something worth adopting.

It's not like there isn't a precedence for this; Dark Heresy (and thus by extension all of FFG's 40k RPGs) stole half its Talents from the Inquisitor game, down to the exact same names - and the first Beta of DH2 adopted its woundless combat. There's no shame in taking cool stuff from elsewhere. Fluffwise, 90% of 40k is stolen from inspired by something else.

Mortals is a handy term to use.

"Human", too, and it's not as misleading or derogatory.

Well, I have been told here how 10 Stormtroopers could do the same as my Vincian. Not that Oblivion's Edge (and therefore FFG) agrees. In OE, a whole company of them is meant to die on that Hive Ship, while the KT is meant to live. Just sayin'.

Of course Oblivion's Edge would agree. It's an FFG product, and the designers have made it clear that their version of Space Marines far surpasses GW's.

The thing is, if you need 10 Storm Troopers for what a single Marine can do, then at some point this ceases to become a viable option, because these troops need to be deployed first. You'd need ten times the fleet transportation capacity, and ten times the number of drop ships.

Space Marines also have another huge non-combat advantage that would come in handy: they're much more versatile. A Storm Trooper is always a Storm Trooper. Maybe you have a demo expert or a combat medic in a squad, but they're still all infantry. Your typical Space Marine, however, has spent years being a Scout, and then a Rhino driver, and a support gunner, etc. Every single Marine can assume almost any role depending on what is needed at the moment. Their higher resilience/survivability coupled with extended lifespan ensures that they can amass far more experience and training, and unlike the Storm Troopers that rush from one warzone to another, the Astartes can actually spend months or years at a time in their Fortress-Monastery honing their skills and limiting actual risk exposure (depending on the Chapter Master's "aggression" or willingness to help).

By comparison, Storm Troopers are just way more specialised. They can pull off many the same jobs, but their lack of adaptability and mobility as well as all the little edges from Astartes Implants (greater endurance, immunity to poison, fast-clotting blood etc pp). I'm sorry, I just don't see why you need to play "Goliath" in order to see the Space Marines being worth having, and it still sounds as if you're looking solely at their strength (read: damage) and toughness (read: invulnerability).

And again, even if the Space Marines were not worth having (which is an interesting thought - less so because of their combat prowess, but more because a lot of them seem to have trouble cooperating with the Imperium, or outright turn traitor), that still does not negate their presence in the setting. Because the Imperium is not about common sense.

Why do you think the Salamanders Chapter recruits only Aspirants who are able blacksmiths? I can't think of a reason this makes them better fighters. On the contrary, they're bound to miss out on recruits who may be good fighters, but lack skill at the anvil.

Let's face it, the Imperium is good at gimping itself because of tradition. And I actually consider this a feature of the setting, rather than a bug. It's part of what you ought to be having fun with!

Given the rituals that an Aspirant has to go through, every Initiate Astartes, every Scout is already a hero.

We seem to have different ideas of what constitutes a hero, then. By your assessment, half the Dark Heresy characters are already heroes before they begin play solely because they've started as, say, gangers on a Hive World, or Feral World barbarians, or Schola Progenium graduates.

I suppose there is a valid point to this, somewhere, but it's not what I have been talking about.

Anyways, I'm glad we discovered the root of our disagreement! I also agree about every player enjoying "power-tripping on some level" - but as I also agree about DW putting it center-stage, this is where I'm saying it might be "too much" for some people.

As I said, there is such a thing as "too epic", and I don't seem to be alone in this opinion.

That being said, it's true that Deathwatch was obviously intended to deliver not only a different scope and focus, but also a different type of narration and gameplay feeling. In this, I suppose, it has succeeded, in that it's exactly what you wanted.

We can't all have the games we'd like to see, someone (in case of DW, me) is always going to lose out. We can witness this phenomenon nicely if we head over to the DH2 discussion forums and discover the many different directions that people are trying to nudge the game to.

The primary archetype that Marines are supposed to embody is mythic religious knights (a la Arthurian legend), not 21st-century special forces.

In TT, a space marine has about the same stat line as a tyranid warrior (albeit with fewer wounds) and almost exactly the same one as a necron immortal. They are significantly, not just slightly, superhuman.

Well, if we're going by TT values, Space Marines have the strength of a Kroot merc and are about as resilient as an Ork Boy.

Still, I don't think anyone is questioning your comparison to at least one of their likely inspirations, nor that they are "significantly superhuman"! (especially considering that Cail and me kept promoting all those "minor" implant perks that you so easily dismiss)

Just that maybe this shouldn't play that big a role in a galaxy where people run around with laser rifles that make your flesh explode. And that maybe it should not happen to the disadvantage of a whole lot of other aspects of the setting, which have also been modelled after significant, heroic inspirations.

As I said, in my case it is a dual-desire of wishing for a greater feeling of urgency and risk (you're more powerful -> you get to fight more, or more dangerous opponents -> same lethalty), as well as a demand for consistency between the different pieces that make up the greater picture.

I don't think this part of the debate will lead us anywhere, as it's pretty much just a matter of taste.

Said debate has been interesting to read, and occasionally take part in. All parties seem well reasoned, myself excluded- not because I don't think I was well reasoned but rather because I don't think one should decide whether or not one's self was well reasoned or not. Too much risk of bias.

The primary archetype that Marines are supposed to embody is mythic religious knights (a la Arthurian legend), not 21st-century special forces.

In TT, a space marine has about the same stat line as a tyranid warrior (albeit with fewer wounds) and almost exactly the same one as a necron immortal. They are significantly, not just slightly, superhuman.

The questing knight thing is very much an opinion, and it wasn't a depiction that started getting added to the game until somewhere around its 3rd edition, although its now the most prevalent.

Remember that Immortals got nerfed pretty hard in the last codex (losing a point of toughness and a point of AV), so technically they were 'brought down to a space marines level'. It doesn't sound as impressive when you put it that way.

The primary archetype that Marines are supposed to embody is mythic religious knights (a la Arthurian legend), not 21st-century special forces.

In TT, a space marine has about the same stat line as a tyranid warrior (albeit with fewer wounds) and almost exactly the same one as a necron immortal. They are significantly, not just slightly, superhuman.

I told my players that their PCs are a mixture of both. As for the Astartes power level, I think there's some room for subjective interpretation - which is good! Everybody can choose the interpretation they prefer.

Sure. And maybe that kid with a rock managed to throw it directly into the Hive Tyrant's eye.

Nah. Damage potential should take the weapon that deals said damage into account. I don't mind critical hits, but they ought to make normal injuries more severe - not up the damage potential of a weapon that would normally be unable to harm its target.

Matter of preferences, though. I can see how you came to look at it from another way, and can accept that you just like it more. I'm only going by what my gut is telling me, too, after all.

This might also be connected to my belief that total damage should be determined by the attack test (=accuracy) rather than an additional dice roll (=completely random) - which I feel is a leftover from DnD in the sense that a lot of P&P game developers do it this way simply because it has become some sort of industry standard.

Ah, Lynata, it's super-easy to decide ad hoc in play whether some NPC should get RF or not. And, you know, even if that kid with a rock gets RF against a Hive Tyrant it is still unlikely to do much damage, if any at all. So that works well enough. I don't have to be a fan of the mechanic, it just needs to work well enough to not get in the way of story-telling.

Naah! Inquisitor had its own problems. I'm just thinking that the way it dealt with injuries was very clever, and that this is something worth adopting.

It's not like there isn't a precedence for this; Dark Heresy (and thus by extension all of FFG's 40k RPGs) stole half its Talents from the Inquisitor game, down to the exact same names - and the first Beta of DH2 adopted its woundless combat. There's no shame in taking cool stuff from elsewhere. Fluffwise, 90% of 40k is stolen from inspired by something else.

What, no way! Genestealers are totally original content!!!!

See, we have been debating mechanics at lengths here and as a basically crunchy guy I don't really think it is worth it from a GM's perspective. It's fun but it doesn't really improve gameplay too much. How to create interesting roleplay in DW seems to be more of an issue.

"Human", too, and it's not as misleading or derogatory.

I use that to refer to all of IoM.

Of course Oblivion's Edge would agree. It's an FFG product, and the designers have made it clear that their version of Space Marines far surpasses GW's.

We haven't established that though. There's GW fluff that supports either interpretation, yours and mine. Which means everyone gets to pick and choose their own.

The thing is, if you need 10 Storm Troopers for what a single Marine can do, then at some point this ceases to become a viable option, because these troops need to be deployed first. You'd need ten times the fleet transportation capacity, and ten times the number of drop ships.

Space Marines also have another huge non-combat advantage that would come in handy: they're much more versatile. A Storm Trooper is always a Storm Trooper. Maybe you have a demo expert or a combat medic in a squad, but they're still all infantry. Your typical Space Marine, however, has spent years being a Scout, and then a Rhino driver, and a support gunner, etc. Every single Marine can assume almost any role depending on what is needed at the moment. Their higher resilience/survivability coupled with extended lifespan ensures that they can amass far more experience and training, and unlike the Storm Troopers that rush from one warzone to another, the Astartes can actually spend months or years at a time in their Fortress-Monastery honing their skills and limiting actual risk exposure (depending on the Chapter Master's "aggression" or willingness to help).

By comparison, Storm Troopers are just way more specialised. They can pull off many the same jobs, but their lack of adaptability and mobility as well as all the little edges from Astartes Implants (greater endurance, immunity to poison, fast-clotting blood etc pp). I'm sorry, I just don't see why you need to play "Goliath" in order to see the Space Marines being worth having, and it still sounds as if you're looking solely at their strength (read: damage) and toughness (read: invulnerability).

You are exaggerating, Lynata. DW Marines are not invulnerable. In DW, they have exactly the resilience they need to accumulate said experience. They have the resilience and skill to put them against Hive Tyrants and Daemon Princes and perhaps survive a round or two.

And again, even if the Space Marines were not worth having (which is an interesting thought - less so because of their combat prowess, but more because a lot of them seem to have trouble cooperating with the Imperium, or outright turn traitor), that still does not negate their presence in the setting. Because the Imperium is not about common sense.

Why do you think the Salamanders Chapter recruits only Aspirants who are able blacksmiths? I can't think of a reason this makes them better fighters. On the contrary, they're bound to miss out on recruits who may be good fighters, but lack skill at the anvil.

Let's face it, the Imperium is good at gimping itself because of tradition. And I actually consider this a feature of the setting, rather than a bug. It's part of what you ought to be having fun with!

Sure but I don't think that the interpretation that Marines are not worth having is supported by GW's fluff!

We seem to have different ideas of what constitutes a hero, then. By your assessment, half the Dark Heresy characters are already heroes before they begin play solely because they've started as, say, gangers on a Hive World, or Feral World barbarians, or Schola Progenium graduates.

I suppose there is a valid point to this, somewhere, but it's not what I have been talking about.

Err... no? Initiates are heroes because they have passed the trials required to enter? Because they killed a Barb Dragon on their own? Because a young Space Wolf has passed The Blooding? These are all heroic feats. The families of an Ultramarine or a Crimson Fist look at their lost son with huge pride. Not to mention that in DW you play marines who likely have been in a number of campaigns, which likely saved many lives. You only have to read the farewell rituals on page 310 of DW Core... these are ceremonies for a hero, so-to-speak. "Among a 100 Astartes, there may be 1 fit for the Deathwatch" and all that.

That's where a PC starts out from . Being the chosen one from his generation, having completed a trial heroically, being passed on holy geneseed, having proven one's self in combat as a Space Marine, likely having saved countless lives in doing so. You're entering the game with 13K of XP, accumulated by all of this. Certainly almost every citizen of the IoM will look at you as a hero and treat you as such. What PCs haven't done is to stand out enough from the other Astartes to receive special hero status (like special character models) among their peers. But from the POV of a mortal, they certainly are heroes.

That being said, it's true that Deathwatch was obviously intended to deliver not only a different scope and focus, but also a different type of narration and gameplay feeling. In this, I suppose, it has succeeded, in that it's exactly what you wanted.

I wouldn't say that. It's more like I tasked myself with the challenge of trying to make this baby work. As is, it's a challenge for a GM because of the aforementioned reasons. DW doesn't work well if you have players who don't embrace the mindset I have outlined. If they come in with an attitude of "Hey, my PC can do all that and is already a hero, what's left for me to do?" then they are unlikely to enjoy it and come up with good roleplay. As a player, you need to accept your role as demi-god of war and focus on forcing the will of the Emperor on a hostile galaxy. Whether it wants that or not. Ideally in an orgy of xeno blood!

We can't all have the games we'd like to see, someone (in case of DW, me) is always going to lose out. We can witness this phenomenon nicely if we head over to the DH2 discussion forums and discover the many different directions that people are trying to nudge the game to.

I believe I was one of the vocal voices against the v1 damage system back then. But I didn't ask the system to be scrapped, I just wanted an overhaul of some of the aspects that didn't seem very plausible.

Alex

We haven't established that though. There's GW fluff that supports either interpretation, yours and mine. Which means everyone gets to pick and choose their own.

I still think it's worth pointing out that in GW's rules - both the tabletop as well as Inquisitor - Space Marines are (much) easier to injure, and they use weapons with the exact same damage potential as human troops. That's a notable difference to how DW deals with things (to the woe of inter-game balance).

As I said, I would agree that much of this is probably a consequence of DH's flawed basics being stretched beyond the breaking point - although as I have pointed out several times in the past, the fluff contradicts Codex material as well, at least in regards to the quality/power of their gear. And it would have been possible to address the mechanical issues in a different way by deviating from said flawed basics and establishing a system that is better geared towards high-powered characters.

In short, Deathwatch as a game is much more closely oriented at the Space Marine legends and myths in GW material, rather than the information presented in a somewhat more factual manner. As such, it is true that some of the studio fluff supports such a superheroic version, but I would not describe it as the core vision of the Astartes - unless it'd refer to how the Astartes are regarded in-universe , and what they are supposed to aspire to.

Deathwatch basically is like the "300" of FFG's 40k RPGs. Epic battles with larger-than-life protagonists against faceless hordes (or Hordes?) of mooks and the occasional boss fight. And just like with the 300 movie, we should keep in mind that it's a myth captured on film, rather than how the Battle at the Thermopylae actually went (which was probably still very heroic, just not that much).

Didn't it actually say something like this in the design notes, too?

In DW, they have exactly the resilience they need to accumulate said experience. They have the resilience and skill to put them against Hive Tyrants and Daemon Princes and perhaps survive a round or two.

Given that they would have this in my interpretation already, I think they have more - and as such, more than necessary , in yours.

Sure but I don't think that the interpretation that Marines are not worth having is supported by GW's fluff!

I dunno... GW fluff tells us there's only 1 million Space Marines, which is ridiculously few. It also tells us that a lot of these 1 million are not very reliable, at times even causing internal conflict with unnecessary casualties. And it tells us that Space Marines are regularly confronted with opposition that is too much for them, so that they must call in the Imperial Guard, which has an infinitely bigger supply of men and materiel.

This leads me to believe that an argument about this question could be made, though the Marines' value in deployment speed and their combat efficiency obviously makes it something that is very much debatable rather than a fact.

I'm sure there are many situations where a delay in troop arrival would have led to catastrophic results, just as much as I believe that Storm Troopers trying to proxy for Astartes would in most cases lead to much greater casualties (and not only from the STs, but also other allied forces in the area). As I pointed out previously, my personal belief is that the Space Marines still have an important role to play and are not easily replaced.

Err... no? Initiates are heroes because they have passed the trials required to enter?

And as I said, many characters in Dark Heresy may have had to face similar challenges in their backgrounds.

Equal treatment for all.

I believe I was one of the vocal voices against the v1 damage system back then. But I didn't ask the system to be scrapped, I just wanted an overhaul of some of the aspects that didn't seem very plausible.

Yeah, same here! The damage system seemed a bit weird in that it appeared they have taken inspiration from Inquisitor, without going the whole way - and instead made it look awfully complicated and, in some cases, produce rather weird results that felt a bit disconnected from what the system attempted to (or was supposed to) portray.

In short, to me, DH2 actually didn't go "far enough" with its changes.

I'm still lucky all those different ideas were published, though. At least it allows us to work with and modify them as houserules, basically treating them as inspiration. I could see a few people continuing to develop the old Beta stuff, and I think I've seen at least one poster announce that his group will stick to those rather than the release version.

This has been interesting...but I'd like to say something.

I kind of agree with both sides in a way.

The Adeptus Astartes are indeed like demi-gods. They can fight for days straight, can deal with extreme environments without protection, ignore most non-mortal injuries, have amazing threat assessment and perception, are highly trained, confident, compitent and use technology that robs their enemy of any chance they'd have in an even number fight.

Yet that's nothing various Xenos can't claim.

What makes the Space Marines what they are is something Lynata pointed out. They pick their battles. They have mobility and they exploit the crap out of it.

Oh...the enemy is trying to gain a foothold in this area with drop infantry? Well, the space marines can get there faster, the navy glasses the area with a bomber then the drop pods appear and the regiment gets annihilated while they're trying to regroup. Four squads could do that job, not even a full company. Their superior armor, weapons, tactics and battle awareness give them the edge over a much larger number of disorganized troops. It's the ability to react to the enemy's strategy that makes them such a dangerous fighting force.

The enemy has an artillery position that's been pounding your lines, holding you back? Battle bikes, hit and run, then when the enemy commits to defending, drop the land raiders and turn the place into a parking lot.

Then lastly, you've got an enemy base that's too well defended to assault and has orbital reach on armaments so you can't lance it? Well, instead of wasting half your attack force trying to deplete their ammunition reserves, how about let the Marines go in and sabotage the gates? They've got stummes and cloaks, better training and more experience than storm troopers. If anyone can do it, they'd be the ones.

Even in open engagements, the Marines can win the battle. The critical moment when the enemy general gambles to win, that's when they step in and stomp his #@&* into a mud-hole.

They even retreat better than the guard. There's no question they're better in every way, by roughtly 100%, but can they do it all themsleves? Never. Nope. They need the IG to take the hits, plain and simple. Though the IG often need them to do the real work while they get pummeled.