I was just confused because you have previously defined "core GW fluff" differently.

Well, the old articles on the DW we have are the most solid sources. I wish they'd bring out a new Codex:Deathwatch, I don't quite understand why they have never bothered to do that. GW should really support the most successful of the licensed products more. Blood Ravens have a lot of fans still and while I don't fancy them too much myself, I don't get why they don't get some official rules.

Anyway, a C:D might provide some clarity and could be fun to play. Poor Xenos players though - but given the current Taudar, etc prevalence, it might restore some balance.

The "wiggle room" you allude to has always seemed to be primarily concerned with tone and atmosphere rather than detail - although there are a some very few things that need to be universally consistent, such as the Ultramarines wearing blue. Gav Thorpe talked a bit about this concept on his blog . Everything else? Possibly true. Or just a myth/legend/propaganda/hearsay, depending on how you want to perceive it and to which vision you want to subscribe.

Interesting blog entry. It pretty much confirms my impressions of how 40K works.

Alex

I'm actually considering "locking down" my interpretation of the setting as opposed to my present stance of sticking to anything they publish.

As someone who locked down their interpretation a while ago, I advise it. I can't name an addition to the fluff concerning marines for that last 4 years on GWs part that isn't utter crap.

Remember kids, by saying everything the publish is canon you are advocating:

Khornate Grey Knights

Nemesis baby walkers

centurion suits

deep striking landraiders

Librarian Dreadnoughts

Wolf Cavalry

I locked my 40K throughout most of the 90s because I didn't like a number of things that were happening there. You can do that but can't do that forever. Wanna play in 20 years 2004 40K? That's as sad as people listening only to music from the 50s just because they were young back then and it was the coolest (note: I like 50s music and was born in the 70s). In my 40K the above-mentioned things exist but most of them probably won't make an appearance in my campaign.

Alex

Anyway, a C:D might provide some clarity and could be fun to play.

But clarity for whom? Unless GW also changed their vision for the Deathwatch (compared to the old WD and the recent Warzone Damnos book), it'd only contradict what people are "used to" from the RPG. I don't think that would be considered fun.

It's like pointing people who enjoy playing GKs in Dark Heresy to the Grey Knights Codex, where they'd discover that FFG has been pursueing different ideas as well. Yes, they did adopt the Dreadknight (out of all the things...), but they completely ignored the new fluff on how exactly they actually gain their Warp resistance (-> blood rituals).

Interesting blog entry. It pretty much confirms my impressions of how 40K works.

There also was an interesting forum discussion where Aaron Dembski-Bowden chimed in with some valuable insight - just in case you haven't seen this one before (I tend to link these two parts of a "trinity" from time to time whenever I get the impression that this info would be valuable to a debate).

You can do that but can't do that forever. Wanna play in 20 years 2004 40K? That's as sad as people listening only to music from the 50s just because they were young back then and it was the coolest

I dunno - it might appear "sad" to outsiders, but what if it makes for an overall better setting for you?

Given how GW is treating the IP, it wouldn't be much different to people who right now are basing their interpretation on FFG's RPGs or some Black Library novels whilst ignoring GW's own fluff (either because they don't know it, or because it simply contradicts what they like more). I just won't feel like I'm sitting on a moral high horse anymore.

There is sadly very little common ground anyways, which is why discussions about details on the setting often take a somewhat antagonistic course just because both (or more) parties have read different things.

Of course, GW might in the future change how they treat the setting, but personally that doesn't sound very likely to me. In fact, given their current policies in terms of pricing, retcons and design, I'm not even sure 40k will be still around in 20 years, at least with its current popularity. Tabletop is already a niche hobby that will see a further drop in players over the next years, rather than a rise. They'll likely keep farming out the license to various other studios, but I don't know if games like these are doing much good for the perception of the franchise.

tl;dr: I see 40k going the way of Star Trek rather than Star Wars, simply due to GW making what I consider huge mistakes. That said, maybe it will at some time receive a reboot that actually fares better than what Trek is doing now.

You can't have armor that saves on a 1+ on a 1d6. That makes something unkillable. You also can't have something that saves on a 7+. That's just no armor. Given these two extremes there are only 5 grades of armor available. Terminator was made 2+, power armor 3+, carapace 4+, etc. These weren't the initial numbers, but what has gradually coalesced over time. GW didn't want to go with a 2d6 system because then you couldn't roll hordes of dice at the same time. You'd have to roll a single test at a time. That would slow the game down immensely. They made the decision to stick with d6, most likely because of its availability in the 80s. Other dice were available but they were not as common as they are now.

What's wrong with only 5 grades of armour, though - if this is what they felt would work best?

Gav Thorpe once said that the settings of WHFB and Wh40k are "backdrops, nothing more. They were created to allow people to collect armies of toy soldiers and fight battles with them." This means they wrote their fluff around the rules they created, not the other way around. This also makes it very unlikely that Space Marines on the tabletop are "gimped for balancing", as I sometimes hear some fans theorise - after all, what exists on the tabletop came first.

Arguably, the TT involves a lot of abstraction. This should be no problem, though, because what matters is that there is not a single weapon that cannot kill an Astartes. Or anything else sans vehicles, for that matter. Even Daemon-Primarch Angron can be taken down by a single lasgun trooper, dice be willing. And if GW hadn't wanted this, they would have merely had to stat him with T 7 instead of T 6. Like they did with the Cronos Parasite Engine.

Because as far as the tabletop is concerned, the weapons of the 41st millennium are truly terrible, and thus a great equaliser between factions. It's what allows even the humble Guardsman to stand up against the bio-horror that is the Tyranids, and more. The weak link in the Imperium is will-, not firepower. And to me, this only adds to the Grim Darkness of the setting.

Also, you're kind of ignoring GW's own d100 game which uses similar dice as Deathwatch and thus allows an experience that is just as granular. The big difference, however, is how it treats Toughness (= not as a second layer of armour). Inquisitor's power armour is actually tougher than DW's, but what matters is that anything that penetrates will cause an injury. Toughness merely dictates how bad it'll be.

You can't have armor that saves on a 1+ on a 1d6.

Actually in a system with armour save modifiers you can. Chaos Knights quite famously had a 1+ armour save in one ofthe editions of Warhammer Fantasy.

I locked my 40K throughout most of the 90s because I didn't like a number of things that were happening there. You can do that but can't do that forever. Wanna play in 20 years 2004 40K? That's as sad as people listening only to music from the 50s just because they were young back then and it was the coolest (note: I like 50s music and was born in the 70s). In my 40K the above-mentioned things exist but most of them probably won't make an appearance in my campaign.

Alex

Why is that sad? If the new game is bad, why is there a problem with staying with an older system you enjoy more. This seems very much like allowing someone else to tell you what opinions to have, which is a problem I have with the edition changes anyway. For the record Necromunda is still very popular, and basically uses the 2nd edition rules system, so the system has stood the test of time. The same can't be said for 3rd-5th edition 40k (although personally I think 5th is the best "competative" ruleset), and no one does anything but complain about 6th.

This is REALLY common in RPG circles where the necessity to play to the 'current' rules is much less of a concern for individual gaming groups. I know loads of WoD fans who won't touch nWoD, and loads of DnD fans who abstain from 4th edition and play pathfinder instead because its closer to 3.5. Even FFGs own WFRP is fighting an uphill battle against people who really prefer 2nd edition.

By all means TRY new things. But just accept that they're better because there newer? Nah, you can keep that.

"In earlier editions of the game, power armour was only effective against lasgun fire 50% of the time, while terminator armour was effective far far more than that (terminators used to have a 3+ save on 2d6...). The removal of save modifiers meant that 3+ was appropriate because it meant anti-tank missiles wouldn't allow the armour to provide any armour save at all. I think you're confusing cause and effect here."

No, I'm saying that the decision was based on making game tests with a single die so that many tests could be made simultaneously. The 2d6 method slowed things down immensely.

"In earlier editions of the game, power armour was only effective against lasgun fire 50% of the time, while terminator armour was effective far far more than that (terminators used to have a 3+ save on 2d6...). The removal of save modifiers meant that 3+ was appropriate because it meant anti-tank missiles wouldn't allow the armour to provide any armour save at all. I think you're confusing cause and effect here."

No, I'm saying that the decision was based on making game tests with a single die so that many tests could be made simultaneously. The 2d6 method slowed things down immensely.

Not really, its what multiple colours of dice are for. Also the 2d6 save thing was pretty rare, given it was only for terminators (which only two sides had access to) and they were around 80pts a model in that edition so a single unit could easily make up a good quarter of an army.

The biggest 'slow down' factors in 2nd ED were the combat phase (which works fine in Necromunda due to the low model count, but is a headache for squad combat) and the card game based psychic phase. The vehicle damage resolution of 1d6+damage+STR took a bit too long compared to the vehicle damage mechanic introduces in 3rd though, and it did away with the need for D4s, D8s and D12s etc etc. Atleast 2D6 still used D6's.

It did need streamlining for army sized combat (again, it works in necromunda due to the low model count), but rolling 2d6 for an armour save on a single, rare and expensive unit was pretty far down the list of worst offenders.