Possible reference to that Human Heretics gain Mutation on almost every 10 corruption level. Ditto

Well after reading a lot of different viewpoint one question came up:

If there is little chance to a mere human disciple of chaos to equally preform in combat with Astrates, what if he can scratch the bottom of their abilities? Like if the Astarates all alone beat a company of armed guardsman with light support weapons meanwhile the Renegade can beat another half company and some mortar teams. Does a routine job of an Astrates means more for a human? Does this mean he is doing better in his own performance scale than the astrates? (examples is just for measuring and sorry for the bad English)

Possible reference to that Human Heretics gain Mutation on almost every 10 corruption level. Ditto

Unless I'm mistaken, it's 10, 20, 40, 60, 80. Quite far from "almost every 10 corruption level". I personally think it should be, but I was voted down by my players, so /shrug.

Space Marines receive gifts at 10, 30, 60 and 90 Corruption.

Both receive their first mutation at 10 ,and even during the course of what amounts to more or less a character's entire lifespan (assuming the character retires at 100 Corruption), that's a measly 2 Gifts more. 2 Gifts that may or may not be completely useless (or incredibly powerful) or even detrimental.

Now, I think it's a cool thing they did, but spread over an entire game, it's actually very little, and comes in play far too late. I've been playing a weekly game for over two (three?) months now, and some of the players haven't even reached their first Corruption Threshold. All of them is still Unaligned, and only one has a Gift of the Gods.

Now, they're all humans, so I'm not having the issues in this thread, but I don't think that additional Gifts for humans is a valid argument by far.

That is one point why I said almost, couldn't quite remember

Have mostly used BC to make enemies to my other games. Few short lived experiment games here and there but nothing long.

That is one point why I said almost, couldn't quite remember

Have mostly used BC to make enemies to my other games. Few short lived experiment games here and there but nothing long.

It really is a really cool system. My only qualm with it is that it's not very flexible, it's firmly tied to the idea of running Heretics. Which, yes, sure, it's what it set out to do, but to me, dreaming of my unified ruleset, it's a bit annoying. But it works really well, I'd argue that it works better than Only War in many respects.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't want to run Black Crusade, because of the idea that you have to be Chaotic Stupid to qualify as a character. At least two of my potential players didn't want to play Black Crusade because they felt that they had to run motivationless grimderp characters that were evil for the sake of being evil, despite my insistance that nothing could be further from the truth.

Chaos needs a better PR department. Fantasy Flight isn't doing a good enough job of playing up the (arguably) "positive" aspects of chaos and the tragic of the fallen hero or the sacrifice of the martyr.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't want to run Black Crusade, because of the idea that you have to be Chaotic Stupid to qualify as a character. At least two of my potential players didn't want to play Black Crusade because they felt that they had to run motivationless grimderp characters that were evil for the sake of being evil , despite my insistance that nothing could be further from the truth.

Chaos needs a better PR department. Fantasy Flight isn't doing a good enough job of playing up the (arguably) "positive" aspects of chaos and the tragic of the fallen hero or the sacrifice of the martyr.

Almost same was with my game group

We are old D&D players but for them WH40K Chaos is almost same as to play Chaotic Evil characters in D&D.

I tried to explain to them that they wouldn't have to be

"Blood of the Blood God!", "Kill. Maim, Burn!", "Drugs, Booze, Women!"

But alas I couldn't knock it through their thick heads.

I dunno, I don't really think you have to play Chaos as "the good guys" to have fun, and whilst such a scenario does allow for some pretty deep storytelling, I feel you'd be missing out on what makes BC special (after all, you already have DH and DW for the "good guys doing bad stuff" schpiel).

However, I would definitively say that you're also missing out if you play BC characters like cookie-cutter Skeletor bad guys, too. For me, a good recipe appears to be to consider the conditions under which people in the Vortex grow up, and consider how this would shape the characters. There's no problem in embracing Evil if your character has a good reason to believe this is the way to go - not out of sociopathic nihilism (such characters can exist, however I believe it'd be boring if they make up the entire group), but simply because their experiences in life have shown them that it's the most efficient way to protect themselves, get ahead, and achieve their goals.

I actually think BC actually does a pretty good job when, during character creation, it tells you to consider your character's ambitions. Know where your character comes from, and what they want from life ... the rest falls into place all by itself.

Oh, don't misunderstand me when I complain about this one-sided way Chaos is presented. All I mean is that when people are "evil", there's usually a reason for it, or at the very least a rationale. The way Chaos is depicted in modern fluff, Fantasy Flight Games included, I fully understand why people would ask themselves how anyone could ever be turned to Chaos.

There's a reason people turn to Tzeentch. They want change, they are full of hope (or full of despair, and want hope), they believe in cold logic, they get lost in labyrinthine schemes, they long for knowledge or enlightenment, and so on and so forth.

Nurgle promises you eternal life, you fear death and you fear change, you want to desperately hold onto to what you've got, you are a diligent servant constantly passed over, you long for security, you are relatively complacent, you see all around you how things slowly degenerate or just keeps churning onwards with little or no purpose, and consider this the natural state of the universe, and so on.

Khorne offers you raw, undiluted power. Power to protect yourself or to protect others, or enforce your will in a direct, phyiscal sense. He gives your life order and simplicity, strictures and ideals, death, blood, honour, strength, the will to power, the strength of will. No gods, no lords, no order, or gives you a place in a hierarchy in which you can advance based on your own pure merit, or simply because your enemies lapsed in concentration. Every chance, it's yours, take it or leave it. War is a constant, war is glorious, war will protect you, war will crush your enemies.

Slaanesh is all about obsessions. You want to be the best banker ever? Slaanesh. You want to be the best painter? Slaanesh. You revel in good food and wines, you strive for sensations and perfection. He offers you the foresight to master structures of magnificent architecture, the ability to produce the most pristine of weaponry, or even the ability to awe your surroundings, gaining the appreciation and envy of your peers.

And I think it gets completely lost. Tzeentch is mutations, magic and manipulation. Nurgle is decay and disease. Khorne is slaughter and suffering. Slaanesh is sex, sex, sex.

I don't want Chaos to be depicted as "good guys". I just want the modern fluff to depict just why people fall to it, and depict how utterly non-homogenous Chaos as a whole is. It's too much "choose one of these four" and then striving to realize the exact image of either of these four gods, to the point where people are asking serious questions on the forum as to whether it would be appropriate to, as a Khornite, immediately attack a psyker, even though there's a mountain of different faiths and interpretations of the tenets of Khorne, let alone the fact that the vast majority of those that worship him likely wouldn't even know his name. Let alone the fact that the gods of chaos shouldn't even have adamant strictures and tenets, except as interpreted by their myriad millions of cultists.

And I think it gets completely lost. Tzeentch is mutations, magic and manipulation. Nurgle is decay and disease. Khorne is slaughter and suffering. Slaanesh is sex, sex, sex.

I don't want Chaos to be depicted as "good guys". I just want the modern fluff to depict just why people fall to it, and depict how utterly non-homogenous Chaos as a whole is.

Ah, gotcha - though I have a feeling this is more a fault of the players than the material. Then again, it may well be that I would be reading different things into the books if I did not already have an opinion on Chaos from other material, so maybe you have a point. As a "veteran" of the fluff, I thought that BC did its job in terms of introducing players to the power and allure of Chaos well, but it is quite possible that new players with less exposure could interpret things differently. I guess this is what you're hinting at.

Well after reading a lot of different viewpoint one question came up:

If there is little chance to a mere human disciple of chaos to equally preform in combat with Astrates, what if he can scratch the bottom of their abilities? Like if the Astarates all alone beat a company of armed guardsman with light support weapons meanwhile the Renegade can beat another half company and some mortar teams. Does a routine job of an Astrates means more for a human? Does this mean he is doing better in his own performance scale than the astrates? (examples is just for measuring and sorry for the bad English)

I think this is quite an important observation. By both tabletop and fluff canon, humans can compete with space marines in the sense that a *highly trained* human can be as effective as an *average* space marine.

The game isn't unbalanced just because a combat-optimised human is not as effective as a combat-optimised marine, any more than it is broken because a social-optimised Renegade can't be as effective as a social-optimised Apostate. If a combat-optimised Renegade was less powerful than a *non* combat-optimised CSM it might be more of an issue, but I don't think that's the case. A Slaanesh Champion who invests entirely in Fellowship and Charm advances and never bothers to upgrade their starting Legion Bolter won't be anywhere near as effective in a fight as a Renegade who invests in combat advances and packs a best quality plasma rifle. He'll probably still be able to take more *damage*, and will certainly be better at fighting than an Apostate or a Heretek, but that's a different issue.

One of the key differences in the drastically shortened mutations/gifts tables, incidentially, is a distinct lack of non-obvious mutations. The WHFRP d1000 one had a good, decent supply of things which were subtle or barely noticed, even merely alterations of the mind. The BC one, well, it's pretty in your face. That stuff is gone and, I honestly don't know why. If you want to make things viable for diverse approaches, the crunch should illustrate how.

A bit of a footnote, perhaps, but, it's one of the things this avid ratrat noticed almost immediately in terms of the presented diversity of chaos in the 40k RPG.

Equipment doesn't have to do anything with training, and in the tabletop as well as GW's own fluff (and a small number of Black Library novels) Humans are quite capable at rivalling veteran Astartes as well. And not just as snipers.

I often point out that this is because the guns in 40k are a great equaliser, but in BC this is not the case as FFG has chosen to introduce two tiers of gear, artificially inflating the gap between Humans and Astartes.

That said, it's important to keep in mind that there is no canon , and quite a few non-GW-studio sources (mainly a large number of Black Library novels) support the interpretation of a vast gap between Humans and Astartes, so BC isn't "wrong" because it sticks to the "walking immortal god of war" version of Marines - I just think this makes for poor balancing in mixed groups and is a problematic, even dumbed-down representation of the game's world, as if Marines were not important already.

And let's be honest, which CSM apart from Sorcerers is never going to upgrade his bolter?

The WHFRP d1000 one had a good, decent supply of things which were subtle or barely noticed, even merely alterations of the mind. The BC one, well, it's pretty in your face. That stuff is gone and, I honestly don't know why.

Oh, yeah! That's quite a shame - but I recall there was a thread here aiming to bring that table into BC?

By both tabletop and fluff canon, humans can compete with space marines in the sense that a *highly trained* human can be as effective as an *average* space marine.

Equipment doesn't have to do anything with training, and in the tabletop as well as GW's own fluff (and a small number of Black Library novels) Humans are quite capable at rivalling veteran Astartes as well. And not just as snipers.

I often point out that this is because the guns in 40k are a great equaliser, but in BC this is not the case as FFG has chosen to introduce two tiers of gear, artificially inflating the gap between Humans and Astartes.

That said, it's important to keep in mind that there is no canon , and quite a few non-GW-studio sources (mainly a large number of Black Library novels) support the interpretation of a vast gap between Humans and Astartes, so BC isn't "wrong" because it sticks to the "walking immortal god of war" version of Marines - I just think this makes for poor balancing in mixed groups and is a problematic, even dumbed-down representation of the game's world, as if Marines were not important already.

And let's be honest, which CSM apart from Sorcerers is never going to upgrade his bolter?

Experienced humans can be as good as *less* experienced Marines is sort of the key point. The most personally powerful characters in tabletop have *always* been Marines (at least within humanity - Eldar and the like are a different matter). Hell I'm pretty sure that in the most recent incarnation of the tabletop rules humans never get Strength or Toughness above 3.

As for guns being the great equaliser ... they basically still are. There are a very small number of weapons which have "Astartes"/"Legion" versions that are more powerful than the standard weapons but, crucially, these generally *aren't* the most powerful weapons in the game (with the possible exception of the Astartes Heavy Bolter). A reaper autocannon is a reaper autocannon, regardless of who carries it. And even then the difference between Legion and mundane weapons is only four points of damage, which is very little compared to the differences between optimised and non-optimised builds.

As for what kind of CSM wouldn't upgrade his bolter - that's sort of my point. CSMs are better at fighting than humans and so *all else being equal* they would be expected to be better at fighting. If a CSM and a Human put equal effort into improving their combat effectiveness, the CSM will always be ahead. That itself isn't a problem, any more than it is a problem that a Renegade will be more effective in combat than an Apostate. It only becomes a real problem if a *non* combat-optimised CSM is more effective than a combat optimised human. If CSM starting weapons were *so good* that humans could never beat them, even by upgrading, that would be an issue.

And as I keep saying, this is not just a "problem" affecting Marine characters. Normal Humans can get "too tough" as well, which is why the Dark Heresy forum is full of GMs asking how they can keep the game challenging for their players, or why some GMs sadly feel it necessary to go as far as banning power armour.

As for guns being the great equaliser ... they basically still are. There are a very small number of weapons which have "Astartes"/"Legion" versions that are more powerful than the standard weapons but, crucially, these generally *aren't* the most powerful weapons in the game (with the possible exception of the Astartes Heavy Bolter). A reaper autocannon is a reaper autocannon, regardless of who carries it. And even then the difference between Legion and mundane weapons is only four points of damage, which is very little compared to the differences between optimised and non-optimised builds.

Actually, 4 points of damage are a critical difference, if they are applied in the medium damage range - because they can be the difference between "all damage absorbed by TB" or actually causing 4 Wounds. If this difference was inconsequential, it wouldn't be there in the first place; I'm pretty sure it is not a coincidence that the damage boost is equal to the increase in TB applied to Marine characters and NPCs from Deathwatch onward.

Also, it's not just the +4 damage. If you look closely, the weapons tend to offer other "minor" benefits as well, be it increased range, increased penetration or increased clip capacity. The Legion meltagun, for example, has +100% range, which is quite important if you consider the Pen bonus it gets from Short Range attacks.

As mentioned earlier, I'm not debating that extremely specialised Humans may come somewhat close to Astartes, but that doesn't change that there are very few options you could actually select from if you want to go this route (not to mention that they usually require further requisitions, and so are not available right from the start). And all these options can be "sabotaged" by a player simply announcing their desire to play a CSM who even just moderately goes for combat, because - let's be frank - that's everyone's primary image of Marines, and I just don't see how even a social-focused Slaanesh Champion CSM wouldn't requisition better wargear simply for appearance's sake.

It is not comparable to a Renegade being more effective in combat than an Apostate because the player of the Apostate could simply opt for a Renegade if they want to portray a (more) powerful combatant. And the best thing? Said Renegade could still be portrayed as if they were an Apostate-type character.

With CSMs, however, you are not only changing class, you are effectively changing the character's race and locking them out from a vast range of possible backgrounds and personality/appearance types. Hell, you're even locking them out from selecting their character's gender.

CSMs are better at fighting than humans and so *all else being equal* they would be expected to be better at fighting.

There's no need for this to be that way. A bolter is a bolter.

Where Marines are expected to be better at fighting is melee due to their inherently greater strength and resilience. In essence, Marines should be the "tanks", and if everyone had equal ranged weapons this would already do a lot for making Human combatants more viable even when working next to combat-focused CSM.

But obviously someone thought "just" being the kings of melee was not enough, or this is just an issue "inherited" from the Deathwatch RPG, where the damage bonus actually made sense from a gameplay and narrative PoV, because DW Marines needed it against NPC CSMs, and they were not working alongside Human characters.

I'm not sure Ogryns count as "natural". It's not like an Ogryn starts out as an ordinary human and just tries really hard.

You make a good point that four points of damage either way can - in the subtractive damage system of 40K - make the difference between "can't hurt at all" and "can take out quite easily" but again I'd suggest that they key point here is that the difference between Chaos Marines and Humans is far smaller than the difference between Humans an Other Humans.

For example, even within the *same archetype* the Renegade can be starting play with a Best Craftsmanship Lasgun (1D10 + 3 Damage, Pen 0, never jams) or a Common Craftsmanship Plasma Gun (1D10 + 8 Damage, Pen 10, Maximal, Overheats). Admittedly you have to buy Weapon Training Plasma to use the plasma gun but that's a comparatively small investment of XP for a massive increase in damage right off the bat.

I do kind of see the distinction between Apostate/Renegade and Renegade/CSM in that yes, I can imagine a player who specifically wants to play a combat-focused human. But there's an extent to which I think that's a player who has conflicting goals - their desire to play a Human on the one hand and their desire to play a *completely optimised* combat character on the other. If your primary motivation is to be as combat-optimised as possible, then you should just play a CSM if that's the option. If you care more about your character concept than about optimisation then you just need to accept that you chose to play a non-optimal combat character.

I also find it interesting that you use the word "tanks" to describe Marines - I'd be inclined to agree, but I'd be inclined to use the term in the more literal "large heavily armoured weapons platform" sense of the word. It's true that a bolter is a bolter is a bolter in tabletop, but at the same time the marines are clearly *supposed* to be better equipped than the rest of the Imperial military. If they're only incrementally better than the average Imperial soldier, the entire Primarch project seems like a bit of a waste of time.

I do agree that it causes balance issues, and I *would* be inclined to segregate Human and Heretic PCs, but more because they have very different focuses than because CSMs are *brokenly* more powerful than Humans.

I think I mentioned it already, but the question wasn't dropped.

The gap between marines and humans in mechanical terms is wide. Thankfully, there are plenty of reasons why a marine is not nearly superior compared to humans if you actually implement mixed groups in your storytelling, with all the fluff and subtle details which make it.

A space marine is supposed to be a living god of war - and most enemies focus fire on them. Their gear which gives them an edge is actually hard to feed with ammunition, take good care of, and maintain. It, among with progenoids they carry, is also so valuable that groups which would not care for human heretics could and would plot attacks and assassination attempts on lone astartes or small groups of them - that's how valuable they are. Extremely confined spaces? Masquerading as loyalists far from the front lines? Delicate tasks using hands? Using any transport not suited for marines (and most of the vehicles fits right into this catgory)? You WILL have troubles.

I really don't know if you are complaining about marines based on gaming experience or just stats you get. All I know is in my games marines and humans both have their place and purpose, are challenged by sufficiently dangerous foes to make it challenging, and are dependent on each other.

A space marine is supposed to be a living god of war - and most enemies focus fire on them. Their gear which gives them an edge is actually hard to feed with ammunition, take good care of, and maintain. It, among with progenoids they carry, is also so valuable that groups which would not care for human heretics could and would plot attacks and assassination attempts on lone astartes or small groups of them - that's how valuable they are. Extremely confined spaces? Masquerading as loyalists far from the front lines? Delicate tasks using hands? Using any transport not suited for marines (and most of the vehicles fits right into this catgory)? You WILL have troubles.

The problem is that this is what I would call a "burned on the outside raw in the middle" solution. Marines do what Marines do far better than non-marines, while non-marines do what non-marines do far better than marines. Which can be a headache to GM because it means you're constantly having to sideline one side of the party or the other.

Similarly, I'm not completely sure that the fact that Marines make bigger targets really balances out their being more powerful. As - I think - Lynata pointed out above, the key point here is that everybody should get to be cool. For some players (and I suspect mileage varies here a *lot*) having the Marines "balanced" by the fact that, in essence, the whole galaxy thinks they're far more important than you are just makes the situation worse.

It's basically a matter of taste. I prefer to segregate not so much because CSMs are more *powerful* (like I say, I think the CSM/Human variation is well within what you expect from a non-class-based system) but because they have a tendency to dominate the narrative, with everything having to be designed around their unique capabilties, limitations, and ties to canon.

A space marine is supposed to be a living god of war - and most enemies focus fire on them. Their gear which gives them an edge is actually hard to feed with ammunition, take good care of, and maintain. It, among with progenoids they carry, is also so valuable that groups which would not care for human heretics could and would plot attacks and assassination attempts on lone astartes or small groups of them - that's how valuable they are. Extremely confined spaces? Masquerading as loyalists far from the front lines? Delicate tasks using hands? Using any transport not suited for marines (and most of the vehicles fits right into this catgory)? You WILL have troubles.

The problem is that this is what I would call a "burned on the outside raw in the middle" solution. Marines do what Marines do far better than non-marines, while non-marines do what non-marines do far better than marines. Which can be a headache to GM because it means you're constantly having to sideline one side of the party or the other.

A big issue here is that in many cases, the Marines aren't for the most part "worse" at stuff the humans are meant to be good at. Apart from infiltrating and blending into human society, the bonus stats and baseline combat abilities (allowing them to focus almost entirely on non-combat abilities without being too much of a dead weight in a fight) of the marines allow them to often be better than their mortal colleagues at their intended non-combat specialty, be it interaction, use of technology or infiltration.

I'm not sure Ogryns count as "natural". It's not like an Ogryn starts out as an ordinary human and just tries really hard.

Oh, of course not - that's not what I meant. What I tried to express is that, apparently, you don't need super-secret forgotten gene science .. Ogryns came into existence after just a few thousand years of "natural evolution". And they are stronger as well as tougher as Marines.

Perhaps this makes it appear less like a coincidence that most Human characters with statlines approaching (or, in Harker's case, exceeding) Space Marines are Catachans?

But nobody here is actually advocating that Humans should be "completely optimised" as CSM are. I, and as it seems some other players, are quite okay with the gap - we just think it's way too big.

For example, why would it not be enough if a Human lacks the Strength and Toughness of a Space Marine? Why do we have to gimp their weapons, too? "Completely optimised" means ranged as well as melee prowess and resilience. CSMs dominate in all three areas. I'm saying two would be sufficient.

Okay, now this is a matter of interpretation and preferences, making it a bit more complicated.

In the original background, Marines are not supposed to be better equipped than the rest of the Imperial military. Bolters are available to Commissars and, as heirlooms, select Imperial officers as well. Plasma guns and meltas are carried into battle by Militarum grunts. The Adepta Sororitas have Codex fluff stating they are "exceptionally well equipped, with armour and weapons the equal of any Space Marine Chapter."

Furthermore, Games Workshop has produced its own d100-based game (Inquisitor), and guess what, there was only one boltgun profile for everone, too.

Neither of this makes Space Marines a "waste of time", because it doesn't change the fact that they are still the most resilient and potentially(!) powerful ground unit you can squeeze into a single square metre. They are a highly mobile force multiplier whose presence, if cleverly planned and executed, can greatly increase the power projection of nearby Guard units by blowing a breech into enemy defences or killing off enemy commanders.

The Imperial Guard is the hammer. The Space Marines are the scalpel. If you want Marines to be the hammer, too, then I'd say this would dumb down the Astartes' special role in the setting, though this is just my preference for every part of the Imperium having its role, rather than everything turning around and being focused on the Astartes as if they were the center of the galaxy (Emperor knows, some books certainly make it sound that way).

I also find it a bit sad that almost everyone seems to focus exclusively on a Marine's damage potential and tankyness, when these are just two aspects of their genetical enhancement, and quite possibly the least important ones. Space Marines need less sleep and can fight for several days without pause. They heal quicker, and they have superior adaptability to hostile natural environments and resistance to poison. Their extended lifespan and strict training regimen allows them to amass considerable experience in a multitude of roles, increasing the individual soldier's variety in that he ends up being able to swap between being a tank driver, a jump jet melee expert, a heavy weapons gunner, a speeder pilot or a sniper at a moment's notice. Their ships and vehicles are geared for impressive speed, allowing them to deploy and redeploy at a moment's notice.

... but apparently this is not cool enough, people only care about +4 damage and TB?

Anyways - arguably, it is more difficult to make a Human who can keep up with Astartes, which is why in GW's version of the fluff there are fewer Battle Sisters than Marines. But it is not impossible, so why should it not be an option in an RPG that features mixed parties?

Personally, a bit of both, I guess. I haven't played in a mixed BC party yet, but I have fought against CSM NPCs as a Dark Heresy Human, and I have played a Space Marine in Deathwatch, so I think I have a fairly good idea of what they can do in comparison to Human characters.

I also don't agree with the supposed solution of "focus fire", and here's why:

If the enemy would play smart, they would pick off those targets they can get a good shot at, including flanking manoeuvres and traps. Also, if the CSM is the only one being attacked, you are essentially reducing other characters to the role of background actors, whilst the Movie Marine in the middle is the cool dude in the spotlight.

If, on the other hand, you are keeping separate and differently tiered types of enemies around to deliver a challenge to both the CSM as well as the other players, you are quite simply railroading, and I feel that such things harm the immersion by making the encounter feel too scripted. Not to mention that stuff like different Horde rules for Marines and Humans, as suggested in BC, is basically the game admitting that it's incapable of dealing with all PCs on an equal level without bending reality.

This we can agree on!

Marines portrayed with rules turning them into walking gods of war are not "wrong", they are simply one out of many possible interpretations - and quite likely the one most popular with people who are itching to play one.

On the other hand, some players also like to play Human combat characters and are used to a different portrayal where they can indeed fight side by side with Marine characters without too many problems.

The question is, which of these two options would be better for a roleplaying game that aims to have Marines and Humans in the same party? I don't think there is a definite answer on this one, although it would have been an option to offer two different rulesets and let the group choose what sort of CSMs they want to allow. After all, we already have two different sorts of Battle Sister classes in Dark Heresy, too.

On a sidenote, personally I think the bit about "the whole galaxy thinking you're far more important than you are" (and I feel GW has adressed this when Codex fluff talks about Imperial religion, superstition and propaganda) is part of The Grimdark™.

But nobody here is actually advocating that Humans should be "completely optimised" as CSM are. I, and as it seems some other players, are quite okay with the gap - we just think it's way too big.

For example, why would it not be enough if a Human lacks the Strength and Toughness of a Space Marine? Why do we have to gimp their weapons, too? "Completely optimised" means ranged as well as melee prowess and resilience. CSMs dominate in all three areas. I'm saying two would be sufficient.

The problem with Marines only having an advantage in melee combat and survivability is that it pidgeonholes Marines as primarily Melee fighters, which they really aren't. Chaos Marines are *slightly* more melee-focused than loyalists, but only because of specialist units like Raptors, Berzerkers, Possessed and Mutilators. Regular Space Marines are a tactically flexible army with (I would argue) a slight bias towards shooting.

If Marines didn't get a bonus in ranged combat, it would mean that ranged Marines were, in effect, nerfed relative to melee Marines.

In the original background, Marines are not supposed to be better equipped than the rest of the Imperial military. Bolters are available to Commissars and, as heirlooms, select Imperial officers as well. Plasma guns and meltas are carried into battle by Militarum grunts. The Adepta Sororitas have Codex fluff stating they are "exceptionally well equipped, with armour and weapons the equal of any Space Marine Chapter."

They're not supposed to be better equipped than *every single other member* of the Imperial Military, but they are supposed to be better equipped *in general*. I'd argue that the fluff you cite actually supports this. Bolters are available to Commissars and, as heirlooms, to select imperial officers. But in the RPG (and, to be honest, in most GW games) they've been available to pretty much everybody.

The Sororitas codex, after all, says "armour and weapons the equal of any Space Marine Chapter" not "armour and weapons the equal of ... well ... about half the citizens of the Imperium really, I mean seriously half the gangs on Necromunda have bolt weapons these days".

The fact that melta and plasma weapons are available to baseline grunts is, I would argue, more evidence in *favour* of giving Astartes weapons an upgrade. If, as you suggest, the Astartes are supposed to be a mobile, elite strike force designed to take out high-priority targets, why restrict them to the (comparatively weak) Boltgun when there are enough Plasma and Melta weapons out there to give to Imperial Guard squads? We had exactly this conversation the last time we played Deathwatch . Why on Earth do DW characters - who are already members of an elite within an elite - have to build up a prerequisite level of Renown before they are allowed to access weapons that the Imperium is happy to hand out to low-level ground-pounders?

As always a big part of the issue here comes from the Tabletop to RPG conversion. A squad of ten Space Marines with Power Armour and Boltguns feel a whole lot more powerful than a squad of ten Imperial Guardsmen with flak armour and lasguns because in a given turn the Marines will hit seven or eight times to the Guardsmen's five, deal five or six wounds to the guardsmen's two or three, and save most of those (while the Marines' guns will blow through the guardsmen's armour without thinking about it). In a squad-based wargame based on D6es a relatively small incremental advantage feels significant.

Perhaps more importantly, the fact that *one* of those Imperial Guardsmen could have a Bolt Pistol doesn't change things much. What makes the Marines more effective is that they all have BS4 and the all have S4 weapons.

Put it in a tabletop context and things start to look very different. Yes a Space Marine with a Bolter (even a regular bolter) will do more damage than a Guardsman with a Lasgun, but because of the way RPGs deal with gear, the guardsman is likely to have upgraded their lasgun to a bolter as well. And because the game is percentile-based the Marine's extra ten points of BS make far less difference than the difference between BS4 and BS3. And of course that difference will also disappear if the Guardsman puts points into improving Ballistic Skill.

In tabletop a Marine army can feel like it is composed of elite, superhuman warriors even though in reality Marines only have incremental advances relative to regular humans, because the game doesn't include an experience point system which regularly advances regular humans to a level above their starting capability. In the RPG Marines need *something* to make them feel like they aren't just slightly better trained humans.

The Unnatural Strength and Unnatural Toughness bonuses go a long way to preserving this difference, but this has the side-effect of making Marines feel sort of like Ogryns - their only real advantage over regular humans is being big, strong, and tough.That doesn't capture the feeling of being a truly *elite* fighting force. Giving them better gear helps preserve that feeling.

The Imperial Guard is the hammer. The Space Marines are the scalpel. If you want Marines to be the hammer, too, then I'd say this would dumb down the Astartes' special role in the setting, though this is just my preference for every part of the Imperium having its role, rather than everything turning around and being focused on the Astartes as if they were the center of the galaxy (Emperor knows, some books certainly make it sound that way).

If we're talking about *every* part of the Imperium having its role then I'd argue that the role of "scalpel" rests squarely on the Officio Assasinorum. They're the guys that the Imperium call when they want to surgically remove a specific target. The Space Marines - whatever Deathwatch might have to say about it - are primarily for fighting wars. They were, after all, created specifically for the Great Crusade, which was an invasion, not a black op.

If we're sticking with the tool metaphor I would argue that the Marines very much *are* the hammer - heavy hitting and surprisingly fast moving but not actually particularly subtle or discriminating. The Guard, I would argue, are the anvil - large, unwieldy, and solid, a mass against which things are broken.

I'd also point out that a lot of the advantages you cite Marines as having simply disappear in the RPG, both in the sense of not being useful and in the rather more important sense of not being true. A Marine's experience might mean that he can switch between being a tank driver, a jump jet melee expert, a heavy weapons gunner, a speeder pilot or a sniper at a moment's notice, but:

a) That is very seldom useful in a tabletop role-playing game where players work in highly niche-protected parties, and insofar as it *is* true it actually feels detrimental to the all-important "coolness" factor which I think we both agree is very important in a tabletop roleplaying game. One of the recurring issues in the sporadic Deathwatch game I am involved in is that the Assault Marine is constantly aware that he would be slightly better off using a Heavy Bolter than actually fighting in melee. Similarly while it might be true that a CSM can pilot a speeder or act as a sniper at a moment's notice, it is *extremely* improbable that they would have to. I'd also point out that since the only sniper rifles in the game are las-weapons or exotic weapons *every* character in a 40K RPG is equally capable of acting as a sniper at a moment's notice.

b) It is strictly untrue in an RPG. In tabletop having WS4, BS4, ST4, T4 is basically all you need to be a highly tactically flexible combatant. In a tabletop RPG with a much more complex blow-by-blow combat system, a good basic statline really doesn't cut it. My Deathwatch character is a Devastator, and since he hasn't invested in any melee bonuses, it means his options in close combat are basically to attack with his knife for 1D10 + 8 damage. Which isn't terrible, but since the Assault Marine is making four attacks with a Power Sword in that amount of time, it doesn't really feel like I'm pulling my weight. And again, a regular human with a Chainsword would be able to do about the same amount of damage, more if they had put any effort whatsoever into improving their melee abilities. I am also strictly *incapable* of using a Jump Pack because even though fluff suggests that I could, Marines don't get Pilot: Personal as standard. Nor do they get proficiency with Astartes Sniper Rifles, even though they are all expected to have gone through Scout training.

The question is, which of these two options would be better for a roleplaying game that aims to have Marines and Humans in the same party? I don't think there is a definite answer on this one, although it would have been an option to offer two different rulesets and let the group choose what sort of CSMs they want to allow. After all, we already have two different sorts of Battle Sister classes in Dark Heresy, too.

The thing is, it's even more complicated than that - the question isn't which system is better for a game with mixed parties, it's which system is better for a game which wants to support CSM-only parties, Human-only parties and mixed parties.

For a CSM-only party the Legion-weapons bonus is definitely a plus, because it means that the characters can effectively fight the sorts of enemies that Marines are likely to be fighting (this was the same argument you made yourself for Deathwatch). For Humans-only parties I would argue that it is a plus as well, because it allows Marines to be a truly terrifying opponent as (I would argue) they should be. It doesn't make them unstoppable, because a well-built Human PC will almost always be more effective than a generic NPC unless the GM is explicitly trying to hose the players (but they can do that by any method they like), but it reinforces the otherness of the Marines, which I think is good.

It's only in mixed games where it causes problems, but I think the problems are more of split focus than of pure power. Between a CSM with a Legion Bolter, a Renegade with a Plasma Gun and an Apostate with a Laspistol, it's the extremely low damage of the laspistol that make combat balancing tricky, not the high damage of the Bolter. Resilience is arguably a much bigger issue. An attack that will do one wound to a Marine in Power Armour will do seven wounds to a Renegade in Carapace and nine to an Apostate in Flak. And this has profound implications for the kinds of strategy which the PCs might adopt. A CSM is happy to frontally charge a unit of guardsmen, but it would be suicide for a Human. The problem here isn't so much balance as the fact that it necessarily splits parties.

The imperial guard is a specialised army with a strong bias on shooting. Why should the shooty army shoot worse than the marines? And by shoot worse, I mean "be more likely to miss". Guardsmen simply use inferior weaponry. If they all had bolters, they'd be devestatingly accurate and deeply scary.

Now, if the real problem is the mechanically weak bolter, why do there need to even be two models? A bolter is a bolter in table top. In fluff, a bolter is a rapid fire rocket launcher. I'm all for it having an increased damage. It's a pretty sick weapon. The problem, as stated numerous times, is that space marine bolters are "better" for no reason at all. That's unnecessary. Sure, it puts things that might kill a marine in the hands of an ex-guardsman, but TT does that plenty. I see no reason not to follow suit.

Marines are not a shooty army in TT, not even in fluff. They're all-rounders with a melee bias, even on the imperial side. Their entire vehicular support pool is focused on getting them close to the enemy as fast as possible, so they can use their superior genetics and equipment to the best of capacity. A long-ranged, shooting engagement is utilising space marines at their tactical worst, unless you're facing something like nids or orcs. Everything else, you want to be up in its face.

The problem with Marines only having an advantage in melee combat and survivability is that it pidgeonholes Marines as primarily Melee fighters, which they really aren't. [...] If Marines didn't get a bonus in ranged combat, it would mean that ranged Marines were, in effect, nerfed relative to melee Marines.

They're not supposed to be better equipped than *every single other member* of the Imperial Military, but they are supposed to be better equipped *in general*.

Ah, okay - I misunderstood you here.

But are they not much better equipped than "every single other member* of the Imperial military"? Which rank-and-file Guardsman gets a suit of powered armour or a boltgun?

I'd argue that the fluff you cite actually supports this. Bolters are available to Commissars and, as heirlooms, to select imperial officers. But in the RPG (and, to be honest, in most GW games) they've been available to pretty much everybody.

That's because in an RPG, player characters are "special" and usually get to pick more stuff. Mostly this is reflected in their unique background and/or roles, so it doesn't actually clash as much with the background as you seem to suggest.

The fact that melta and plasma weapons are available to baseline grunts is, I would argue, more evidence in *favour* of giving Astartes weapons an upgrade. If, as you suggest, the Astartes are supposed to be a mobile, elite strike force designed to take out high-priority targets, why restrict them to the (comparatively weak) Boltgun when there are enough Plasma and Melta weapons out there to give to Imperial Guard squads?

It's kind of as if you'd only hand out rocket launchers to the USMC because they do the most damage. See how a grunt squad does in an infantry battle without proper assault rifles!

For a CSM-only party the Legion-weapons bonus is definitely a plus, because it means that the characters can effectively fight the sorts of enemies that Marines are likely to be fighting (this was the same argument you made yourself for Deathwatch).

Isn't this the same thing? I'm not arguing balance for its own sake, but how it ultimately affects the game and the fun of its players.

... whew, apologies for the long post. It is an interesting discussion, though - at least I hope you feel likewise.

Lynata, on 13 Aug 2014 - 2:41 PM, said:

That's because in an RPG, player characters are "special" and usually get to pick more stuff. Mostly this is reflected in their unique background and/or roles, so it doesn't actually clash as much with the background as you seem to suggest.

True, but this is exactly what I see as causing the problem.

In an RPG all players are special, but you have to be very careful to make sure that the individual specialness of each PC doesn't clash.

At the most extreme end, we could completely eliminate all game-mechanical differences between CSMs and Humans (except for the special Marine organs). A Marine is special by dint of being a Marine, a Human is dint of being the sort of Human who is about as good as a Marine.

The problem with this is that it undermines the flavour of the Marines, who are specifically supposed to be *genetically engineered supersoldiers*. If my genetic engineering is ultimately game mechanically identical to your careful training, it isn't particularly clear how my being genetically engineered helps. In some games this is fine - you could run a perfectly good FUDGE-based 40K game in which "Renegade Member of the Adeptus Astartes" and "Fallen Member of the Imperial Guard" were both just High Concept Aspects. But the 40K RPGs have a very crunchy, very detailed, very *mechanically specific* way of representing game-reality, and if Marines are supposed to be genetically engineered to have superhuman capabilities then there needs to be a game-mechanical reflection of that.

If I play a Marine in an RPG I want that character to feel *quantifiably different* from a character who isn't a Marine.

Lynata, on 13 Aug 2014 - 2:41 PM, said:

Because a battle cannot be won with meltas and plasma guns alone. Those weapons have drawbacks.

It's kind of as if you'd only hand out rocket launchers to the USMC because they do the most damage. See how a grunt squad does in an infantry battle without proper assault rifles!

This actually ties into my earlier comment about the importance of Marines being overestimated in-universe. The only reason a Guard grunt doesn't get a bolter, too, is because those weapons require a lot of ammunition and are too maintenance-intensive.

Many years ago, I played in a Necromunda campaign. One of the players in that campaign decided (partly for flavour, and partly because it was beardy as all get-out) to field a gang equipped only with Plasma weapons. He completely kicked ass, because while Plasma weapons have *minor* disadvantages, the advantages massively outweigh them. I suspect you wouldn't be happy of the new Codex Space Marines allowed all Marines to swap out their bolters for Plasma Guns at zero points cost.

Heck in an earlier post you mention yourself that any CSM worth his salt will upgrade their starting bolter for a more effective weapon the first chance they get.

I agree that Meltas are more limited due to their short range, but plasma guns are flat-out better than boltguns. And they're *certainly* better for the kinds of jobs Space Marines are supposed to be doing. A small unit in need of concentrated firepower in a narrow space is far better off using plasma weaponry than bolt weaponry.

Lynata, on 13 Aug 2014 - 2:41 PM, said:

There's nothing wrong with Marines or other Imperials overestimating the Astartes' role within the setting, but I consider it a worrying trend that this has spilled over onto the fanbase itself, as it tends to throw up a lot of conflicts with the original source material that actually make perfect sense if you just look at them from a perspective of Marines not being THAT special.

Your group's debate about the weapons being a good example. As was your comment about Marines being a waste if they were weaker.

Again, I feel I should stress that such a perspective is perfectly valid due to 40k's lack of proper canon, and I have a suspicion a lot of Space Marine novels support your opinion. I'm just saying that this isn't how the setting was originally written by GW, but rather something that seems to be pushed mainly by the fanbase and some Black Library authors. This needs to be kept in mind before calling GW's fluff into question as supposedly "not making sense" (you didn't actually do as much, I think, but I've seen such comments from a lot of other 40k fans, and I find that a bit unfair).

The issue isn't that CSMs would get pidgeonholed as melee fighters just because Renegades could be as good as they were, it's that CSMs would get pidgeonholed as melee fighters because they would have *specifc*, melee-only bonuses and no corresponding ranged bonuses.

It's sort of like D&D Fighters. In theory there was nothing stopping them from specializing in ranged weapons, but because specializing in melee was so much *more effective* for them they basically never did.

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 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 .

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.

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).

As for the lasguns, I didn't make that up - this is straight from GW.

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.

Also, Imperial Guard regiments do not have a steady supply chain. Warp travel makes it difficult to impossible to schedule regular drop-offs of critical supplies. Did you notice how, in Codex fluff, a Imperial Guard does not have any logistics element like modern armies do? Every single regiment is a "closed entity" that is supposed to function on its own (barring transportation, which is where the Navy comes in, or a need for mixed Army Groups for more difficult campaigns). Once raised and underway, there is zero connection to their homeworld. The regiment's fate is to fight and roam the stars, picking up supplies whenever they pass by a factory world, and the only way to gain replacements is merging with another regiment. Under these circumstances, the ability to generate their own ammunition is critical - and that means laser weapons, which can be powered by renewable sources.

I believe it is common practice to go by 2nd Edition and onward, as things didn't actually change much after this point, at least as far as GW is concerned. Which is why all the new books tend to be 50% copypasta when it comes to the fluff.

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.

"The Second Founding of the Space Marines was decreed seven years after the death of Horus. The existing Space Marine Legions were broken up and refounded as smaller, more flexible formations. Where the old Legions were unlimited in size, the new formations were fixed at approximately one thousand fighting warriors. This corresponded to the existing unit called the Chapter, and in future the Chapter was recognised as the standard autonomous Space Marine formation. No longer would one man have power over a force as powerful as a Space Marine Legion."

- WD #252, Index Astartes

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.

It doesn't only make little sense to disband them (given that the Imperium cannot save on investments if it doesn't invest much in them in the first place), it also directly attacks the spiritual balance of the Imperial Cult. Not to mention that it is quite likely that the notoriously independent-minded Space Marines would react violently to any effort to remove them. You'd only trigger another civil war.

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.

By the time it takes a Guard regiment to even assemble , the Space Marines have already created an opening for them to exploit. This is why the two forces have such a great synergy, and why the Space Marines work as a force multiplier for the effectiveness of a Militarum Army Group.

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.

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.

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.

Oh, I got it. You are probably playing combat-oriented adventures and therefore face troubles with CSM/human balance - most of your complains are either combat or weapons.

Ok then, I could agree, for combat-heavy games mixed human/CSM groop is troublesome. If you are more into secret cults, espionage, investigations and hunt for forbidden lore (like me) - I assure you from my own experience, you won't face those problems.