I'm looking to begin writing rules for Chaos games using the Only War rules next, which means that I'd very much like the community's input on a rather key matter.
Do you want me to make a solely Chaos Marines driven conversion? Or something with a greater mix? For the most part, I am of the opinion that Only War's standard rules suffice for Chaos Guardsmen and general recidivists, with some minor skill swapping as is, so I'm inclined to just go into writing things up as if from the Chaos Space Marines codex from TT. If I do, it will likely follow my Space Marine rules by and large in terms of theme, with comrades being a purely optional thing.
Your thoughts on the matter?
The Lost & The Damned - Community Input
Why are you doing Black crusade in OW?
Because I vastly prefer the Only War systems and for the sake of completeness, considering that I have done rules for everything else.
I also think that the Marines are too strong even still in Black Crusade, so I'd be nerfing them down just like I did loyalists in Deathwatch.
That'd be why.
Now any suggestions as to the how?
Comrades - Regardless of the nature of the character, I suspect Chaos characters should have a generic cultist comrade, though the GM can choose to waive these.
I'd recommend focusing on traitor guardsmen. And forget about camaraderie among those who tread the path of glory - there are only hated enemies, pitiful minions and feared masters for a heretic.
Codex: Eye of Terror , which came out late 3rd/early 4th Ed. had a Lost and Damned army list, which was limited to a maximum of 3 CSMs ("Aspiring Champions"), leading armies of corrupt Guardsmen. If you want to follow that template, you could have a CSM commander playing a role similar to an Inquisitor in DH1 : a terrifying NPC with the power of life and death over the PCs, whom they are desperate to impress with their abilities in order to gain greater autonomy...
The title may have led you astray somewhat. I simply picked that out as a fancy title.
I honestly think that playing Chaos Guardsmen is as easy as applying the Traitor drawback to the players and swapping out some of their lores as appropriate to the theme of the game. In the instance described above, the CSM would merely take over the role of Commanding Officer.
I don't honestly think there's enough material to justify a Traitor Guard ruleset when playing the existing rules with a slightly different spin on them suffices.
On the other hand, Chaos Marines do have enough material to justify such a ruleset - particularly as I want to nerf them down substantially from their Black Crusade power level.
To clarify, as people seem to be missing the point. I am not asking whether I should do Chaos Marines or Traitor Guard.
I am asking if I should do Chaos Marines, or Mixed Chaos Characters (Similar to what happened in Black Crusade).
Having broken it down I think I can get 5 basic CSM specialisations, 4 Support Specialisations and 4 or 5 Advanced Specialisms. Maybe two specialisms shy of what I would ideally like in a full ruleset.
Someone please tell me I'm making sense hehe?
Current working proposal.
Same racial traits as loyalist astartes as per Sons of the Emperor rules.
Basic
Champion
Havoc
Operator
Raptor
Tactical
Support
Chirugeon
Dark Apostle
Obliterator
Sorcerer
Warpsmith
Advanced
Chosen Champion
Khorne Berzerker
Plague Marine
Noise Marine
Helbrute
Edited by SgtLazarusWhy are you doing Black crusade in OW?
Well, Black Crusade is a completely different tier compared to the footslogging of Only War. Black Crusade is more comparable to Rogue Trader than Dark Heresy in most regards.
That being said, when someone says "The Lost and the Damned", I think of Traitor Regiments, not Chaos Space Marines. Any Space Marine play is far above the foundations of Only War, and I must also express confusion why someone would use Only War as a base for Black Crusade play - wouldn't it be easier to adapt Black Crusade, then, rather than the other way around?
Black Crusade and Only War are easily amongst the most compatible rulesets in the WH40kRP line so far.
Bluntly, I dislike the power level of marines in official FFG iterations, and I have a very low opinion of Black Crusade's alignment system.
I like the format presented in Only War, and the name "Lost & the Damned" is on the front of the CSM Codex.
To round it off, I don't care for the infamy mechanics particularly either.
All in all.
Not much I directly want to keep from Black Crusade that isn't already in Only War. I like lower power games and I'm in favour of working out a Closer To Codex arrangement of house rules.
I have already explained my motivations on several occasions. So why do I keep having to repeat myself?
Bluntly, I dislike the power level of marines in official FFG iterations, and I have a very low opinion of Black Crusade's alignment system.
I like the format presented in Only War, and the name "Lost & the Damned" is on the front of the CSM Codex.
To round it off, I don't care for the infamy mechanics particularly either.
All in all.
Not much I directly want to keep from Black Crusade that isn't already in Only War. I like lower power games and I'm in favour of working out a Closer To Codex arrangement of house rules.
I have already explained my motivations on several occasions. So why do I keep having to repeat myself?
If you've already decided on exactly what you want to do and the way you want to do it, why even ask for community input? Apologies if this motivation has also been explained on several occasions, I don't keep track of who you are or what other threads you frequent.
Edited by FgdsfgWhen I had posted this thread I had not decided anything other than that I wasn't doing Traitor Guard regiments.
I already explained things in this thread itself. Just about every reply I've posted has been explaining my points of weaker marines.
The initial question was a very simple one; Do I include some human cultist classes among the CSMs as well?
So far I've had two people actually offer up suggestions, though it was apparent they misinterpreted the question. Still, appreciate that they made a go of it. Hence the clarification afterward.
I'm frustrated, as is probably evident in my tone of writing, because people seem not to read the **** thread before they post. Ideally I'd have liked the question I asked answered.
As for your assertion that marines have no place in Only War, I think they have every place. It's the most militarily oriented and feels more appropriate, even, than Deathwatch for marines in terms of gameplay style. They are soldiers, after all.
Part of my intention is to ultimately develop something akin to a universal ruleset for the RPG which lines up with the table top wargame and its codices.
All credit to FFG for their good work, but ultimately I don't agree with the established power disparity.
I think though from what I can gather, the consensus is to do one or the other, but don't mix.
Fair enough. I might as well make a start from that basis.
Here's your answer: if you are planning this hybrid for action-packed combat-themed chaos game, you'd be better off not doing it - no matter how you will nerf CSM power level, it simply will not turn into balanced game. For investigations and other non-combat scenarios this can work out - just like it does with unmodified BC.
I also think that the Marines are too strong even still in Black Crusade, so I'd be nerfing them down just like I did loyalists in Deathwatch.
Interesting. I actually think the FFG ruleset renders space marines underpowered as compared to normal humans. A space marine's base for things like Strength and Toughness should be considerably more than 5 or 10 points more than a human. In this sci-fantasy reality, it shouldn't be possible for even the strongest, non-machine/mutant human to be half as strong as a space marine. Yet, in the systems, that's well within reach.
I actually think the FFG ruleset renders space marines underpowered as compared to normal humans. A space marine's base for things like Strength and Toughness should be considerably more than 5 or 10 points more than a human.
The system in DW is ... very weird in that it doesn't make much of a difference in Strength and Toughness when it comes to actual Tests, but creates a ridiculous gap (that requires discarding codex fluff and the creation of special mechanics just for Marines) as soon as Bonuses come into play. So they are kind of over- and underpowered at the same time.
My own suggestion would be to ditch the Unnaturals and their wonky mechanics, and instead opt for a simplified +40 Strength, +20 Toughness. Yeah, it'll result in Astartes characters having an ~80% success chance on the d100 out of the box - which frankly they deserve due to their superhuman nature. If you want to challenge them, have them face harder Tests that come with whopping penalties. Kicking a door in should be a 100% auto-success, but pulling open a sealed airlock ... not so much.
The initial question was a very simple one; Do I include some human cultist classes among the CSMs as well?
Personally, I would, if only because I am heavily biased towards "unified" rulesets that ideally cater to all types of characters. Groups who want to run CSM-only campaigns could still do so, as would Cultist-only groups. It's all about options, I say.
Plus, as Adeptus-B mentioned, there can be an important interplay between CSM and Cultists, which means you ought to look for some semblance of balance between them anyways. Might as well offer players the option to pick them, too, while you're at it.
no matter how you will nerf CSM power level, it simply will not turn into balanced game.
I wouldn't necessarily agree here. It all depends on where you allow the various character types to shine. Deflating the gap that exists in FFG's games, and looking more towards GW's model, would already do a huge step into the (subjectively) right direction.
Obviously, you'd still not achieve full equality, but in the end the CSM are merely the best tanks and allrounders, and you could easily design Cultist classes that are equal or better in certain specialist roles such as a superior melee fighters (based on stealth and agility rather than brute force) or a sniper (with weapons that have a lower rate of fire than the CSM's bolters, but higher per-shot damage), or by providing a "pet class" that is relatively powerless as an individual, but can command a score of meatshield mooks in battle. And then you have the obvious potential for various "upgrade perks" such as cybernetic modifications or mutations and daemonic gifts. And this is before we even discuss a psyker's obvious ability to simply outstrip their Astartes' companions physical prowess with his or her Warp Magiks.
In the end, all you have to do is to ensure that everyone can find a moment to shine. If it can happen in the codices and stories, then it can happen in an RPG, too.
Edited by LynataBalancing humans and marines was never the objective. You may or may not have noticed that the IG in TT use swarm tactics due to the inferior nature of humans on the battlefield of the 41st Millennium.
However, Marines weren't remotely close to their TT counterparts. We have more reasonable options now.
So far I've already done Chaos Marine specilisations but I am quite happy to add Cultist ones within reason for the sake of options. However, I do have the concern that for the vast majority of cultist roles you could just rename an existing Only War class and go from there.
If you have any suggestions though beyond allowing Traitor Guardsmen into a CSM game, I'm all ears.
And thank you Lynata. That was the kind of response I was hoping for. Faith in humanity restored.
Lynata, please, don't take my words from the context.
What I said is, in combat-oriented game marines and humans are inherently imbalanced. Whether you go by the rules, or use SgtLazarus rules, or use my hardcore mod, a marine is still a bio-engineered superhuman designed to excel specifically in combat.
And if a game is supposed to be not only about fighting, but about actually roleplaying heretics (like described here , for example) - a charismatic human can become far more dangerous than combat expert Space Marine could ever dream of, I assure you.
Edited by ChaplainLynata, please, don't take my words from the context.
What I said is, in combat-oriented game marines and humans are inherently imbalanced. Whether you go by the rules, or use SgtLazarus rules, or use my hardcore mod, a marine is still a bio-engineered superhuman designed to excel specifically in combat.
And if a game is supposed to be not only about fighting, but about actually roleplaying heretics (like described here , for example) - a charismatic human can become far more dangerous than combat expert Space Marine could ever dream of, I assure you.
I don't think I did take your words out of context?
You claim that Marines and Humans are inherently imbalanced in combat. I'm saying: "it depends", and have listed several options for human characters to keep up with CSM in terms of combat usefulness.
Balance does not mean everyone being the same. Balance means everyone should have their moments, and a good chance against one another if they utilise their classes' unique advantages correctly. How balanced are Ogryns to normal Guardsmen in OW?
Warp, just giving both the Marine and the Human the same ranged weapons already equalises their damage potential, leaving the Marine with only his enhanced resilience as advantage - which doesn't count squat if the Human is a better shot and/or never gets hit.* And there are ways to engender such a gameplay, such as by making the Astartes easier to hit (because they're bigger, duh) and/or granting lightly armoured Human characters more ways to use cover, just off the top of my head.
This topic isn't about social encounters and charisma, so I'm not sure why you're dragging that into here. But if I misunderstood you, please clarify further what you meant with that statement about the supposed imbalance.
tl;dr: if you want to kill a Marine, it doesn't matter who holds the plasma gun
*: Disclaimer - this is a simplification of the encounter, as obviously the Marine retains a higher variety, including the option for alternate tactics such as simply charging their opponent for a massive advantage in melee. However, once we factor in such if's and when's, the same will go for the Human character, who may just as well have laid a trap or have a better position or better equipment etc etc leading to a circle argument.
Edited by Lynata
Lynata, please, don't take my words from the context.
What I said is, in combat-oriented game marines and humans are inherently imbalanced. Whether you go by the rules, or use SgtLazarus rules, or use my hardcore mod, a marine is still a bio-engineered superhuman designed to excel specifically in combat.
And if a game is supposed to be not only about fighting, but about actually roleplaying heretics (like described here , for example) - a charismatic human can become far more dangerous than combat expert Space Marine could ever dream of, I assure you.
I don't think I did take your words out of context?
You claim that Marines and Humans are inherently imbalanced in combat. I'm saying: "it depends", and have listed several options for human characters to keep up with CSM in terms of combat usefulness.
Balance does not mean everyone being the same. Balance means everyone should have their moments, and a good chance against one another if they utilise their classes' unique advantages correctly. How balanced are Ogryns to normal Guardsmen in OW?
I claim that whichever narrow-focus combat expertise you will take as a human, CSM will simply do it better if he specializes in that too, and since combat realistically isn't restricted to a single scenario, CSM outclass humans even more.
How balanced are ogryns? Just like psykers, and I mean terrible, if you have nothing but combat in your game.
One on one a SM should in theory win from a guardman (thats just the basic statlines) but lets figure in characters: take commisar Yarrick for example: dude got his arm ripped off and just stood there and killed his oponent. (wich was an ork nob i.e. pretty much equal to SM in terms of power/toughness) And lets keep going: its almost never one marine against one human: its (lets say) a SM battle company against aguard regiment and then the guard will win on numbers and firepower if they know what they are doing.
If you want SM and guard in the same game and have them balanced; why not go the DH route and pair up marines with guard veterans?
I claim that whichever narrow-focus combat expertise you will take as a human, CSM will simply do it better if he specializes in that too
Ah, so I interpreted it correctly. Well, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree!
It all boils down to which version of the fluff you follow, anyways, meaning we are both right and wrong at the same time. I maintain, however, that if you want to create a balanced ruleset, then somewhere there's fluff to support that. If you just don't want to use it because you like Marines to be more powerful, that's your choice.