Human vs CSM starting XP

By Shaun, in Black Crusade

Posted at
Nah, not really, I think most of the games I participated in feature a good mix of everything. But I do have a strong preference for combat-oriented characters, and am simply used to a much smaller gap from GW's own material - especially as my favourite 40k army consists of Humans who have been described as "equals to their brother Space Marines".


So I am wary of this RPG's push towards stronger Marine characters for the double reason of being highly skeptical on the effect on Human player characters (at least the combat specialists), and because it conflicts with my interpretation of the background as shaped by the material I "grew up with" (this one is less of a valid reason, as the fluff allows for many different perspectives and preferences, but it still is a feeling I cannot shake off entirely).


In fact, I opted for a Psyker due to my expectation that I would have much less trouble feeling useful even in an offensive capability, and even when contrasted to CSMs. Though I have to admit that, by now, the role has grown on me for other reasons, too. :)

Posted at

I don't think I follow you here - why shouldn't they be just as effective in ranged combat as they'd be in melee? I'm proposing to buff Human ranged combat, not to nerf the Marines'. They'd still have access to the very same ranged bonuses.

The player can still choose what to specialise in, and each way would be just as efficient. The only difference is that one path might be shared with a Human Renegade, if one of the other players so chooses. As mentioned before, there would still be differences, but damage potential would largely be the same, allowing both types of characters to prove similarly useful.

I think we agree more than we seem to here. I'm all for giving humans access to more powerful weapons, I just don't think the solution is to make all bolters as effective as the Astartes/Legion bolter. That strikes me as eliminating a useful entry on the gear list (the "standard" Bolter, which is an effective anti-flak weapon but not an effective anti-power-armour weapon).

Part of the reason I'm in favour of enhanced stats for Astartes/Legion weapons is that it seems to preserve their niche nicely. The only weapons that have improved Astartes/Legion versions are shotguns, bolters, flamers, meltas and plasma guns, all of which occupy a specific tactical niche and none of which, I would argue, are the most powerful weapons in the game. Humans are still equally effective at using heavy weapons (only the Heavy Bolter gets an Astartes version), sniper rifles (the Astartes sniper isn't particularly good, and isn't included in core BC anyway). I'd argue that the *only* weapon which really gets a major benefit from the Legion Bonus is the Bolter. I double checked yesterday and Legion Meltaguns *aren't* longer range than Human ones, so they really do only get a +4 to damage, and that isn't much when you're dealing with melta weaponry. Interestingly Legion Plasma pistols actually have *shorter* range than human ones.

I don't see what identical weapon profiles have to do with genetic engineering.

But judging from your choice of words, am I correct in assuming that your focus in on the Marines' damage potential, and that this is your primary means of identifying an Astartes? If so, then this becomes simply a matter of personal preferences and opposed visions - we can continue the discussion, of course (as I said, I still find it interesting), but ultimately our positions will simply be incompatible. Neither can I agree with a Marine not feeling "quantifiably different" from a Human just because they're using the same gear, nor can I agree with the consequence of making the Renegade archetype redundant.

That being said, even if we touch the Marines' inherent genetical traits - if we reduce them, rather than taking them away entirely, wouldn't this still make him stand out? Superiority isn't defined by being several times better than someone or something else, it simply means you're better , period .

It doesn't have to be damage, but it does have to be something that is meaningful in everyday gameplay which, in RPG combat, usually translates as damage. I've played Deathwatch, and the various organs don't really come up that often in actual play, but your Unnaturals come up all the time.

Basically I see the Astartes Weapon bonus as a relative non-issue, but as one that makes a reasonable amount of sense given the mechanics and the fluff attached to the FFG version of the game. Firstly it makes little sense for Marines to carry weapons which are barely capable of penetrating their own damned armour (to be fair, the same could be said of Guardsmen - Flak Armour makes lasrifles extremely ineffective) and secondly marines are about 30% *bigger* than regular humans (even discounting Power Armour) and their weapons are *bigger* as well.

To me the real issue standing between Marines and Humans is Unnatural Toughness combined with starting with Power Armour. That's what makes the real difference to combat survivability, which has a real impact on gameplay.

You don't get plasma guns for zero points in Necromunda, and plasma weaponry lacks an option for autofire. They're great for downing single, heavily armoured opponents, but .. in situations where the enemy is more about quantity than quality? Yes, I do believe the bolter would actually be the superior choice here.

Plasma guns in the RPG *do* have an autofire setting, although they have a slightly lower rate of fire than the boltgun. But even so, I don't see how a weapon that is slightly better for the narrow situation in which you face a large number of weak enemies counts as being all-round preferable.

Of course it also depends on what rule system you're using. In FFG 40K with the Hordes rules bolters are slightly better because they get Explosive damage. I think I'd argue that in tabletop Plasma weapons are probably better because they're more likely to wound (although I admit that the rapid fire option from a bolter might help in this context).

I never said that plasma weapons were free in Necromunda, only that they were 100% *worth the points*. Wounding on a 2+ is way better than having a slightly lower chance of running out of ammo.

In an RPG you can overcome the plasma gun's disadvantage by bringing a Horde of mooks along, but that doesn't negate the fact that in the setting itself, someone needs to take care or larger blobs of enemies, and in case of the Space Marines that someone is the 8 members of the squad equipped with the most versatile gun the Imperium has to offer, considering the availability of special ammunition (hell, you can even turn it into a silenced sniper rifle).

Or you could use frag grenades. Or you could just use your much vaunted superior maneuverability to bypass the large number of low-threat enemies completely. Indeed I'd notice that you yourself mention that Astartes regularly go into battle with only a few hundred rounds of ammunition. Even if you could take out a large number of enemies efficiently with a Bolter, you would be putting undue stress on a weapon for which you have limited ammo, and which you are going to have difficulty repairing in the field.

You already hinted at it in your own post: the Imperial Guard are the ones doing the trench fighting. This means they don't actually have a lot of time to properly take care of their equipment, not to mention that a large number of Guardsmen come from worlds that had little exposure to "modern" battlefield technology. Taking apart a boltgun to oil its parts like you have to with projectile-based arms is certainly a lot more difficult than cleaning the lens on a lasgun that bears a "do not open - on pain of death" sticker on its machine-stamped frame.

In contrast, the Space Marines are a highly mobile strike force who simply aren't expected to stay in the field for long, which is how they can afford to go into battle with just over a hundred shots of ammunition per man in the first place. Generally, the Astartes come, blow something up, and return to their Fortress Monastery. It is the Imperial Guard that finishes the job, slaved to a campaign that will see the regiment busy on the world for months, if not years. I suspect they don't actually do any maintenance on their guns themselves, that is what they have their serfs and artificers for. Either way, it wouldn't be conducted in the battlefield.

But that isn't always how Astartes work (nor is it impossible that Imperial Guardsmen could do the same job). The Imperial Fists, for example, are specifically specialists in siege warfare. You don't suddenly see them swapping out their bolters for lasguns so that they will have an easier time maintaining them.

I buy the idea that lasguns are *cheap* and therefore easy to produce in large quantities for the massive armies of the Imperial Guard. The problem is that the idea of boltguns being special and rare has been progressively diluted over the years. The Necromunda rulebook may suggest that bolters are prestige weapons for gang leaders, but they're only 35 Credits on the open market, and they're a weapon the gang leader is likely to *upgrade* the moment they can afford a better one. You could outfit an entire Necromunda gang with Bolters trivially easily, and you'd wind up being more effective in combat as a result.

Ultimately the Boltgun is the iconic weapon of 40K but, for that reason, it tends to show up in every 40K product. That in turn means that it goes from being something reserved for the elite forces of the Imperium to something that any old ganger can buy in the Underhive.

As a result, I support the notion of the Astartes/Legion bolter as allowing the boltgun to fulfill both functions, both as the flagship weapon of basically every armed force in the Imperium and *also* as the specific symbol of the Adeptus Astartes. I think it's actually quite an elegant solution.

Because, as I already said, "things have changed". This isn't the Great Crusade anymore, and the Space Marines are no longer Legions of several thousand warriors conquering entire sectors. Their combat efficiency has been intentionally curbed to make them less powerful as a fighting force and thus hopefully prevent a 2nd Horus Heresy.

The High Lords have given the Space Marines a new role, so it doesn't matter at all what they were originally made for. In other words: The Imperium is inefficient. I believe this to be part of what makes the setting Grimdark, and to be quite in-character for 40k.

But we're not really talking about the way that the Marines operate now, we're talking about the way Marines are designed. that, after all, is what would affect their individual capabilities as warriors. Particularly when you're talking about Legion Marines who definitely *did* come from the days when the Space Marines were actually *armies*.

I'd also point out that whatever the fluff might say, Space Marine Armies are clearly A Thing in 40K - if the primary role of the Space Marine was to do special ops then they'd be an individual squad choice for Imperial armies, not an army list on their own.

Also, the Imperium does train a bunch of Guardsmen to do the same job. They're called the Storm Trooper regiment. However, as I said earlier, few Humans are physically able to match a Space Marine even under specific battle conditions, which means low recruitment numbers and/or high casualty rates, as have already been mentioned for the Sisters of Battle. Plus, Space Marines are still more resilient and more powerful in melee, which automatically makes them the preferred choice.

Also, not only does it take just as long to train a Storm Trooper than a Space Marine (if not longer) .. the Space Marines are simply a matter of tradition. They're part of the Imperial Legend, and they are semi-independent of the rest of the Imperium, their consumption of resources limited almost entirely to their fief, once founded.

I don't buy that it would be harder to recruit Storm Troopers than Marines. Remember we're talking about *billions* of worlds here. You only need to produce one viable candidate per world, and you already outnumber the Marines a thousand to one.

I can see the tradition argument, but I'd suggest that this is another argument for using Marines in prominent, visible, battlefield roles. If they're constantly working behind the lines and undercover, they don't really work as a propaganda tool.

As you already pointed out yourself in an earlier post, they do have better guns and armour than the majority of the Imperial Guard, because bolters > lasguns, and PA > flak.

Why should they have better guns and armour than *anyone* else? And isn't this what you denied earlier?

On a sidenote, the Astartes do not have "better" tanks or ships, they just follow a different specialisation. The Rhino APC, for example, has fewer armour and fire points than the Guard's Chimaera, not to mention the vehicle's turret. However, it is more reliable. Similarly, Space Marine starships have less firepower than the Navy, but they are faster and better protected as they are geared for planetary invasions rather than ship-to-ship battle.

And as for the bit about "blowing holes" - the problem for the Imperial Guard would be to get into position. Its artillery pieces are slow, its forces massive but lumbering. Conversely, the Space Marines can perform rapid landings using drop pods and heavily armoured fliers, with superbly armoured and resilient shock troops attacking the insides of a fortress whilst fast-moving Whirlwind artillery speeds into position in the rear.

The reason that the guard are slow and lumbering is that there are a *lot* of them. There's no reason you couldn't use a small unit of Guardsmen with grav-chutes or the like to get into position.

Again, I get that the Astartes are traditionally used for this kind of job, and that they are, therefore, traditionally given the kind of gear that helps them with this kind of job. To me it follows that the kind of gear they get should be the gear that is *effective* for this kind of job. Which would include, amongst other things, a slightly more effective Meltagun that can actually get you through those fortress walls.

Given that Marines wear Power Armour and are, therefore, clearly *capable* of wielding heavier, more advanced weapons, why on Earth would they not develop them?

Posted at
(Splitting into two because of arbitrary quoting limit)

Matter of preferences - to me it seems wrong to retcon a decades-long standard of equality just to appease Marine fans who wish to steal the spotlight from any Human Renegades the party may have by insisting on their damage bonus.

As further consequences, it removes entire aspects from other areas of the setting. How could the Sisters of Battle be expected to perform their role as hunters of rogue Marine Chapters if they only get crap guns whose only chance to injure consists in rolling Zealous Hatred Righteous Fury?

Also, what you are describing is not a difference in weapon class, but quality. The game already has rules for that.

But the rules for that are not fit for purpose. A Best Quality Bolter still has difficulty injuring a Space Marine.

For what it's worth I would be *more* than happy for the Sororitas to have access to their own special class of bolter *as well*. To me the single bolter statline is an artifact of tabletop rules, not an inviolable truth of the setting. I'd suggest that since the Sororitas are specifically supposed to weed out corruption that, rather than giving their bolters a damage bonus, they should get Sanctified and Felling (I know you have an issue with Felling as well, but I really don't - I'm perfectly happy with the idea of a weapon designed specifically to deal with preternaturally resilient enemies).

To me, this attempt to artificially inflate the gap between Humans and Astartes falls into the very same box as other "Astartes fetishisation", as you put it. The only difference is that this game actually has rules for the plot armour and exceptionalism, whereas a novel just describes its effects.

I do agree that the difference between Marines and Humans is a bit extreme in the FFG RPGs, and I was very pleased when Unnaturals went from a multiplier to a straight addition, but I still think that the big issue here is Toughness and Armour rather than anything else. I don't think a slight bonus to meltagun damage is either here or there.

Except for the Renegade, who - unlike the Apostate, Psyker or Heretek - suddenly sees himself put out of their job. Unless the player is willing to pursue a highly specialised path with a very limited array of weapons, and beg the CSM player to not take the most powerful weapon as well .

Every archetype in a game must have their own domain and a chance to stand in the spotlight from time to time. It's cool to have a "Warrior 1.0" and a "Socialite 1.0", because both types of characters can fully blossom in their chosen specialisations. But you can't have a "Warrior 1.0" and a "Warrior 1.5" and simply expect the former to still have fun if he is in direct competition with the latter. If you're lucky, it will work out, but the potential problems should be evident.

Except the thing is that Astartes *don't* get the most powerful weapons. They get more powerful versions of some mid-range weapons.

Astartes only make Renegades obsolete if the Renegade is trying to be a poor man's Space Marine in the first place. That is, if they're trying to specialise in heavy-armoured frontal assaults. In which case they might as well have chosen to play a Marine from the beginning.

Posted at

I think we agree more than we seem to here. I'm all for giving humans access to more powerful weapons, I just don't think the solution is to make all bolters as effective as the Astartes/Legion bolter. That strikes me as eliminating a useful entry on the gear list (the "standard" Bolter, which is an effective anti-flak weapon but not an effective anti-power-armour weapon).

Its only "usefulness" lies in its role of preventing Human combatants from catching up to Marine characters. Arguably, the Civilian bolter is no true intermediate or "niche" if characters either do not have access to the better version, or won't bother to pick it up because the better version already forms part of their starter gear.

You already mentioned you'd need the damage difference to "preserve the difference" between Humans and Marines. As I said, I neither agree on this difference being represented in their wargear, nor do I believe in the extent of the gap itself.

We can only agree to disagree here.

Humans are still equally effective at using heavy weapons (only the Heavy Bolter gets an Astartes version), sniper rifles (the Astartes sniper isn't particularly good, and isn't included in core BC anyway).

There's also an Astartes Heavy Flamer that has more damage, more penetration, and more ammunition.

It's true that there is no Astartes Multimelta in BC, but I don't have an explanation for this, as arguably it does exist.

Either way, you can hardly say that Humans are "equally effective at using Heavy Weapons" if several choices of this list provide exclusive bonuses to Marine characters. And again, the fact that CSM have more Toughness and better power armour gives them a universal boost to combat efficiency independent of their weapon choice, not to mention their greater battle versatility.

I double checked yesterday and Legion Meltaguns *aren't* longer range than Human ones, so they really do only get a +4 to damage, and that isn't much when you're dealing with melta weaponry. Interestingly Legion Plasma pistols actually have *shorter* range than human ones.

You are correct on the meltagun (I must've slipped in the row). However, it does not only get a +3 to damage, but also a +1 to clip capacity (6 instead of 5 shots, which can easily mean at least one additional attack during an encounter).

As for plasma weapons, the Legion pistol has a shorter range - the Legion gun's, however, is longer. Again, both weapons also have more capacity.

It doesn't have to be damage, but it does have to be something that is meaningful in everyday gameplay which, in RPG combat, usually translates as damage. I've played Deathwatch, and the various organs don't really come up that often in actual play, but your Unnaturals come up all the time.

Unnaturals have nothing to do with the wargear. I'm not discussing Unnaturals here - although I do agree that Astartes are too tough and pose a problem for the game, which is evidenced by the developers feeling a need to introduce such realism-bending traits as Felling or tiered Horde rules. But I also believe normal Humans are too tough (you already mentioned the lasgun's lack of efficiency), so this isn't really a Marine-only problem but one of the characteristics and injury system in general.

Basically I see the Astartes Weapon bonus as a relative non-issue, but as one that makes a reasonable amount of sense given the mechanics and the fluff attached to the FFG version of the game. Firstly it makes little sense for Marines to carry weapons which are barely capable of penetrating their own damned armour (to be fair, the same could be said of Guardsmen - Flak Armour makes lasrifles extremely ineffective) and secondly marines are about 30% *bigger* than regular humans (even discounting Power Armour) and their weapons are *bigger* as well.

15% ... though this is only going by their height, and what makes Marines really stand out is their width.

Again, I am not saying to remove Legion weapons, for - as you say - they are unfortunately a must-have due to Marine toughness breaking the standard damage ranges, and the studio being unwilling to fix this underlying problem. I am saying that everyone should have "Legion" weapons, as they ought to be the standard.

Even in FFG's own fluff, Astartes and Civilian bolters have the same barrel size, so the projectiles have the same calibre. You could argue that this is an oversight and that, perhaps, FFG should invent a smaller calibre for Civilian bolters (.50?) to better reflect the damage disparity. In GW's fluff, however, the bulk of an Astartes bolter was explained differently, namely by specially armoured shell (to better resist the stress of close combat) as well as a range of built-in gadgets similar in usefulness to the stuff that is responsible for the bulk of Marine armour. Because whilst bigger may indeed mean better, it does not universally have to be as shallow as "+4 damage".

I prefer GW's opinion. Not only because I still consider it their setting, but also because it preserves the usefulness of Human combatans as something other than cannonfodder, and a long-standing aspect of an entire army.

Plasma guns in the RPG *do* have an autofire setting, although they have a slightly lower rate of fire than the boltgun. But even so, I don't see how a weapon that is slightly better for the narrow situation in which you face a large number of weak enemies counts as being all-round preferable. [...] I never said that plasma weapons were free in Necromunda, only that they were 100% *worth the points*.

It is all-round preferable because it's way more reliable and has much more ammunition, and because those "narrow" situations seem to occur fairly often. And it is all-round preferable because when you need to take care of the few enemies who really are much harder to crack, there's one or two guys in your squad who can take care of that.

For an RPG in which you do not necessarily have a squad? That of course is different, but doesn't change anything about the weapon's role in the background, and thus its availability to the characters.

And no, you didn't say they'd be free in Necromunda. You did, however, draw a comparison to that game that made it sound as if getting them was a piece of cake, and then asked about how I would feel about a "zero-cost upgrade" in the tabletop.

Or you could use frag grenades. Or you could just use your much vaunted superior maneuverability to bypass the large number of low-threat enemies completely. Indeed I'd notice that you yourself mention that Astartes regularly go into battle with only a few hundred rounds of ammunition. Even if you could take out a large number of enemies efficiently with a Bolter, you would be putting undue stress on a weapon for which you have limited ammo, and which you are going to have difficulty repairing in the field.

Frag grenades are even more limited in number than bolt rounds, and arguable not effective under all engagement situations. And not all enemies can be bypassed, especially if your job is to blow a hole into a heavily fortified position and/or kill an enemy commander protected by a company of troops.

As for the weapon being put under "undue stress" - I guess that's why GW opted for "self-repair circuits" in Astartes bolters as opposed to FFG's "+4 damage". And as mentioned before, Space Marines usually don't stick around long enough for repairs even becoming an option.

But that isn't always how Astartes work (nor is it impossible that Imperial Guardsmen could do the same job). The Imperial Fists, for example, are specifically specialists in siege warfare. You don't suddenly see them swapping out their bolters for lasguns so that they will have an easier time maintaining them.

It may not be how Astartes always work - but that is how they are supposed to work. I've already delivered the quote. Individual Chapters trying to do otherwise don't change this, and if the Imperial Fists are any good at sieges, it isn't because of their abilities, but in spite of them.

The Salamanders are recruiting new Marines based on how good they are at being blacksmiths. Let's just say the Space Marines aren't masters of efficiency. But they are versatile.

Edited by Lynata
Posted at

The problem is that the idea of boltguns being special and rare has been progressively diluted over the years. The Necromunda rulebook may suggest that bolters are prestige weapons for gang leaders, but they're only 35 Credits on the open market, and they're a weapon the gang leader is likely to *upgrade* the moment they can afford a better one. You could outfit an entire Necromunda gang with Bolters trivially easily, and you'd wind up being more effective in combat as a result.

Only because you don't have to spend credits on ammunition, as this isn't tracked by that game. I'd hazard a guess that it isn't particularly hard to build a firearm for .75 projectiles. As long as the dimensions of the ammo are identical, it's exactly the same as any old autogun. You could build one today if you wanted.

Miniature spin-stabilised missiles with a two-stage firing mechanism and a microsecond density fuse, on the other hand? I have no issue believing that this is quite a bit more tricky. And it is this that GW's fluff is suggesting to be the problematic part. This, and the little gadgets built into Marine boltguns.

But we're not really talking about the way that the Marines operate now, we're talking about the way Marines are designed. that, after all, is what would affect their individual capabilities as warriors. Particularly when you're talking about Legion Marines who definitely *did* come from the days when the Space Marines were actually *armies*.

I'd also point out that whatever the fluff might say, Space Marine Armies are clearly A Thing in 40K - if the primary role of the Space Marine was to do special ops then they'd be an individual squad choice for Imperial armies, not an army list on their own.

And as I said, the Emperor only had Earth back then, not a million worlds capable of giving him billions upon billions of disposable grunts. If you're only capable of raising and transporting(!) a limited number of soldiers, you better make sure they're the best you can send. And if they are only 10% better (arbitrary number), you still go for those 10%, because anything else might foolishly prevent you from having a potentially vital advantage over your enemies.

Also, it is worth noting that (as per the Index Astartes) the Space Marines of M41 are not really as "well-made" as the ones from the Great Crusade era, whereas for the Chaos Space Marines ... well, let's just say the exposure to Chaos and lack of proper drill might leave their mark.

Lastly, as far as Marine armies are concerned, special forces are not necessarily limited to squad-based detachments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75th_Ranger_Regiment_(United_States)#Organization

Coincidentally, as per White Dwarf issue #300, Space Marine strike forces usually consist of 1 Battle Company, supported by attached elements of the Reserve and Scout Companies. In my opinion, this fits nicely to their (currently) intended role.

I don't buy that it would be harder to recruit Storm Troopers than Marines. Remember we're talking about *billions* of worlds here. You only need to produce one viable candidate per world, and you already outnumber the Marines a thousand to one.

First off, in GW's material, the Imperium is said to consist of "a million worlds" - remember the bit about one Marine for every planet? Secondly, not every planet is providing viable recruits, be it because it is not subject to Administratum tithe (but instead governed by the Ministorum, Mechanicus or Space Marines) or because, quite simply, this is not how Storm Troopers are recruited. To even just get into the school that makes you a possible candidate for the Storm Trooper regiment, you have to be an orphan of an Imperial official. And then, of course, you have to be one of the top graduates. And lastly, similar to the Battle Sisters, they have an awfully high casualty rate. Both as a mixture of their lower resilience as well as a (much) higher number of deployments, compared to Astartes.

There are also "knock-off" Storm Troopers called Grenadiers, which are indeed recruited together with ordinary Imperial Guard regiments. However, these lack the mobility and air drop capabilities of the ST regiment.

As I said, the Imperium doesn't work efficiently.

The reason that the guard are slow and lumbering is that there are a *lot* of them. There's no reason you couldn't use a small unit of Guardsmen with grav-chutes or the like to get into position.

The reason the Guard is slow and lumbering isn't just that there are a lot of them, but also because they don't have vehicles that are nearly as fast and easy to deploy as the Marines'. It's a brute force approach, but obviously it has its disadvantages. A Basilisk cannot simply be "grav-chuted", and if we're talking infantry, we once again arrive at the Marines' toughness and melee capabilities. To say nothing of the fact that drop pods > grav-chutes.

For what it's worth I would be *more* than happy for the Sororitas to have access to their own special class of bolter *as well*.

Oh gods, please no. Why can't we simply do what GW did for their own d100 game?

I really am not a fan of all this exceptionalism and special rules and suspension of realism, all just to preserve broken game mechanics and unbalanced character classes.

Astartes only make Renegades obsolete if the Renegade is trying to be a poor man's Space Marine in the first place. That is, if they're trying to specialise in heavy-armoured frontal assaults. In which case they might as well have chosen to play a Marine from the beginning.

Sure. All I'm saying is that this makes a lot of character options redundant, as well as the possibility to "replay" or find inspiration in various characters people know from GW fluff. It's also worth to keep in mind that there is literally nothing the Renegade can do that a CSM cannot do better. After all, unlike the other way around, the CSM does have access to all the toys.

If what you're saying is that people who want to focus on combat in a mixed group should just roll a Marine, then I certainly agree that this is the consequence of the game in its current form.

[edit] To perhaps move this discussion further along, as I see we are getting caught up in way too many quotes ...

In the end, it is all a matter of preferences. Some people have less fun in their game if Marines are "not strong enough", because they absolutely need Marines to be as powerful as they are in the material they like (usually some novels they read). Other people's fun is hampered if Marines are "too strong", because they are used to a more grounded representation that lends greater importance to other types of fighters as well. Fantasy vs Grimdark. Some time ago, I already had a similar discussion here .

There is ample support for both interpretations of the background in the various often conflicting sources of fluff, which I suspect is how these different "trends" began to develop in the first place.

We both have our preferred visions of how we see the 41st millennium, and I really don't think we will be able to convince the other to change theirs. And as much as we'd like to due to our conviction, perhaps we shouldn't either. ;) In the end, all that matters is that both of us have fun in our respective groups.

Edited by Lynata
Posted at

Space marine equivalents in terms of training from the Imperial Guard do not have rank-and-file BS 3. Not only does this support the argument, but it underlines that BS is the result of intense training, which both space marines and guard elites have, and not superior genetics.

Q.E.D.

Now, here's something I would find far more fluffy and plausible, for those who want their space marines to be crack shots:

Put a combat tactics and targetting computer into power armours and interface it with the marine over their black carapace, which in this case should be the equivalent of an MIU. The result is, while helmet is on and their systems active, the marine can use the superior vision enhancement etc. of his computer interface to locate targets easier, the servosystems in his armour to correct minor problems while aiming etc.

Why do CSMs not attach integrated weapons systems as auxiliary and direct them over MIUs, if they want to be truly shooty? They wear, what the heretek has to integrate and usually with a power supply that can support it...and no Omnissiah telling them it's heresy.

This has always baffled me in every FFG 40k RPG: Why does the high tech power armour not truly make use of its potential?

It's not all genetics. Superior equipment is a huge, huge space marine factor. Bolter damage is just the most nonsensical way to go about it, tbh, when you have a high tech toy you're wearing on your very own body.

Short version: Marines should have full MIU benefits for their power armour, if those systems are functional, and be able to attach integrated weaponry to it.

An example can be found here: http://youtu.be/7MLoXQIPPNI?t=57s

Edited by DeathByGrotz
Posted at

Tbh, I always imagined the Black Carapace as just another form of MIU, given its description in the Index Astartes.

The funny thing is, Techmarines do use these benefits to control the servo-arm on their back, and I imagine it's similar for the storm bolters welded to some Grey Knights' forearms - which probably qualify as an example for the "integrated weaponry" you mentioned. Same for the Terminator's Cyclone missile system.

The Index Astartes also hints at the Black Carapace's main function not being to direct the power armour, but to interface with its maintenance and first aid systems.

If I had to look for an explanation for Space Marines still carrying their guns as, well, guns, instead of having them strapped on their shoulders, I imagine this is just yet another product of intended versatility, as it makes it easier for them to swap, reload, etc.

That being said, did you ever notice how bolters are sometimes shown as having multiple lenses on their frame? Check this image of the Celestians' weapons; they appear to have a large and a smaller lens on the front. Perhaps the smaller one is a laser pointer (aka Red-Dot Sight), whilst the larger one is ... a camera linked to their helmets?

It'd perfectly explain how Space Marines, Battle Sisters and other warriors equipped with helmets could discharge these weapons without having to use traditional ironsights, which aren't really functional on Imperial bolters anyways.

Depending on how you interpret the "second barrel", it is also represented on the miniatures:

space_marine_tactical_2013_boltgun_6.jpg

Marine power armour is so ridiculously bulky that it makes it nigh-impossible to properly use scopes, but with this technology, the issue would be non-existent as the scope would simply transmit its data to the shooter's "electronic" eye regardless of where he looks. :)

Edited by Lynata
Posted at

This actually got me thinking about legion weapon training again. It's a shoddy rule, as written, and makes absolutely no sense. However, gun-cam systems and neural interfaces are an entirely different beast, one that makes a lot more sense, to set space marine weaponry apart. I still do not think they should do more damage (I think all bolters should do legion weapon scale damage and have legion weapon rarity, to do its terrifying in universe status justice). But, you need to be trained to use these advanced shooting aids, otherwise they will do nothing but irritate you in combat. If Legion Weapon Training were needed to take advantage of the digital combat interface in power armour and the gun-cam sensory aids that allow it to enhance any user's ballistics training, then I could really see it being a legit, worthwhile talent (and, with proper weapon upgrades, something anyone could aspire to take if they use a lot of power armour in conjunction with their gear). Because like that, it's logical in universe and you can have space marines be awesome, without completely suspending disbelief to make them gods they, frankly, are not.

Concretely, I can see such shooting aids negating the accuracy deficite from semi- or full auto fire, for example, or simply giving a flat +10 BS. Really depends on just how awesome you want your power armoured soldiers to be!

Edited by DeathByGrotz
Posted at

Good point!

And I recall that FFG has already "experimented" with suitable bonuses elsewhere. I think the BoM Sister gets a helmet that has an "Auto Senses" trait which gives +10 BS, for example. It wouldn't take much brainjuice to rework it into a combination helmet+gun.

Additionally, I'd also make Legion weapons useful as an improvised weapon (to reflect their sturdy nature) and have them be Best Quality by default (self-repair circuits aiding against weapon jam). Like I said earlier, bigger mustn't always translate to simply increasing the size of everything, it can also mean adding additional gadgets.

Astartes power armour is a good example for this concept as well, if you consider the list of toys built into that suit. If you'd go by Codex fluff, the actual armour plating is only "up to an inch thick" ... which coincidentally fits nicely to another Codex statement referring to Battle Sister PA providing the exact same level of armoured protection, in spite of its slimmer frame.

I like how a lot of GW stuff makes perfect sense as soon as you start reading up on things. :)

Not everything, of course. But a whole lot.

Posted at

I always thought that the intro to dark crusade was one of the best representations of auto-senses I have seen.

Posted at

[edit] To perhaps move this discussion further along, as I see we are getting caught up in way too many quotes ...

In the end, it is all a matter of preferences. Some people have less fun in their game if Marines are "not strong enough", because they absolutely need Marines to be as powerful as they are in the material they like (usually some novels they read). Other people's fun is hampered if Marines are "too strong", because they are used to a more grounded representation that lends greater importance to other types of fighters as well. Fantasy vs Grimdark. Some time ago, I already had a similar discussion here .

There is ample support for both interpretations of the background in the various often conflicting sources of fluff, which I suspect is how these different "trends" began to develop in the first place.

We both have our preferred visions of how we see the 41st millennium, and I really don't think we will be able to convince the other to change theirs. And as much as we'd like to due to our conviction, perhaps we shouldn't either. ;) In the end, all that matters is that both of us have fun in our respective groups.

I'm inclined to agree that this is mostly a matter of taste, although I wouldn't necessarily categorise it as "fantasy vs grimdark" (to me a world in which space marines are superhuman killing machines as far removed from the people the purportedly protect as the daemons and xenos they supposedly protect them from is far *more* grimdark than one in which marines are just well trained guys in good armour).

I'd categorise the disagreement as being about game design more than anything else. I feel that the FFG 40K RPGs are intentionally exception-heavy. Most things have special rules and extra unique twiddles - heck the Inquisitor's Handbook for the old Dark Heresy had rules for *dozens* of Bolter variants - so I'm perfectly happy for there to be multiple varieties of Boltgun in the game, just like I'm happy for there to be game-mechanical representation of Space Marine resistance to injury (in the shape of unnatural toughness) and game mechanical ways to get around it (in the shape of Felling).

If I wanted a game where everything was mechanically identical, I'd be playing FATE.

Posted at
Ah, I don't see indidivual gun models as "exceptions". I like them, and I find they give a weapon more character, which provides further potential for its owner. But these weapons should feel as if they'd follow the same laws of physics and common sense.


For example, the requirements for wielding Astartes weapons are: Be an Astartes. It doesn't matter how much Strength you have, how big you are, whether you're an Ogryn or a hulking mutant ... if you lack the Space Marine class you are punished by a mysterious penalty that quite clearly doesn't have anything to do with realism, but feels like FFG's equivalent of "soulbound items" in MMOs. It's as if Dark Heresy were to have books that can only be opened by Adepts, and Arbitrators are the only class allowed to wield stun batons.


It boggles the mind, especially if you consider that the Inquisitor's Handbook already introduced bolt weapons that provide a Strength-based penalty to BS. And a bolt weapon firing Astartes ammunition that normal Humans have no problem with at all. But I guess FFG just had different ideas than the original Black Industries team.


Same thing for the resistance to injury. There is no rule that it'd have to be portrayed as your skin being tougher than the armour you wear, having you shrug off bullets without a scratch or merely getting a nice tan from the average damage of a plasma pistol discharged into your naked face. There's countless alternatives, from simply providing additional Wounds, to (my preferred approach) GW's own version of d100 Toughness Bonus where it doesn't function like an additional layer of immune-to-pen armour, but instead merely as a buffer between individual Injury levels ... so you'd still get injured, your Toughness merely dictates how badly. A much better representation of how our bodies work, and one that comes with a much higher chance to require bionics and artificial limbs rather than the "I'm fine" -> "I'm dead" we have now where you're as good as gone once you've lost all your Wounds.

It also nicely circumvents the need for stuff like Felling, where a weapon has the exact same effect on a normal guy as to the supposedly much tougher Marine next to him. My suspension of disbelief gets nightmares from stuff like this, and if you want Marines to be much tougher I also find it strange that you'd defend this Trait.


Again, nobody here wants a game where "everything is mechanically identical". It's all about the width of the gap, not the gap itself.



As for the Space Marines being shining immortal knights protecting the helpless masses from danger supposedly being "far more grimdark" than them not actually being as tough as the propaganda makes them out to be - well, we'll just have to disagree there. In my opinion, what keeps them removed from the general populace is way more about their lifestyle and indoctrination (= roleplaying!), rather than a +4 to damage and TB.

Edited by Lynata
Posted at

I agree that the arbitrary restriction which says that Astartes weapons randomly stop functioning for non-Astartes is silly, although I don't think it's unreasonable for there to be a penalty associated with using them if you aren't in Power Armour, or don't have Unnatural Strength.

As for the stuff about Toughness - here you're arguing for a complete rewrite of the way the game handles damage. You *could* have just done it with more Wounds and that probably would have been easier in the long run, but Toughness is a recurring problem with the system that goes well beyond Marines.

Posted at

I agree that the arbitrary restriction which says that Astartes weapons randomly stop functioning for non-Astartes is silly, although I don't think it's unreasonable for there to be a penalty associated with using them if you aren't in Power Armour, or don't have Unnatural Strength.

Aye, depending on how heavy they are, or if they have notable recoil. Right now it's just a bit silly when a Human can swing around a Civilian heavy bolter that weighs more, is bulkier, and has a higher rate of fire, with a larger calibre .. but is supposed to shoot like a one-armed monkey as soon as he wields the smaller and lighter Astartes boltgun. :D

I liked the Strength requirement introduced in the Inquisitor's Handbook. I understand FFG is a different design team, but it's still a bit sad to see this idea not having made a comeback.

Though some general penalty is probably justified given the different ergonomics (a bit tricky though, given the wide range of shapes Human characters may take due to their homeworld's environment). My criticism is less based on wielding a Marine's gun, anyways, but rather that it's hard for me to grasp the idea of the Human weapons have to be so much weaker. A Strength requirement for boltguns would be fitting in general, imho.

As for the stuff about Toughness - here you're arguing for a complete rewrite of the way the game handles damage. You *could* have just done it with more Wounds and that probably would have been easier in the long run, but Toughness is a recurring problem with the system that goes well beyond Marines.

Yep, it's messed up for Humans as well.

Some time ago I suggested a reworked damage system in the Only War forum as the RAW are not that hard to replace in this regard, but ... not playtested so far. Feel free to comment here how you think it'd handle, though - feedback is always interesting. :)

What I'd find interesting in its application to Space Marines is how the Astartes would end up showing injury after bad injury without actually dying quickly. He'd be like the guy in the Dawn of War intro, still moving to prop up that flag even though his body is riddled with bullet holes, soldiering through the pain. At the same time, however, he is no longer invulnerable - anything that gets through the armour, be it an autogun round or a lasgun blast, is going to do something . His advantage is that it takes more damage to cripple a location than with a normal Human, who would drop far quicker.

In essence, the chance to incur injuries is roughly similar with both characters ... the Astartes can just suffer more of them before he goes down.

I believe that such an approach would make for a grittier gameplay as well as improved balance between the character types without sacrificing what makes them unique. It depends a lot on whether you imagine Space Marines pushing through a hail of bullets ricocheting off their naked skin, or whether you like the idea of them getting badly injured yet still not stopping until they've finished the job.

Edited by Lynata