They put a lot of work into balance. Listening to the players. I don't enjoy playing PF, but I do appreciate that the community does spend a lot of time finding broken combinations and then the developers fix before the next edition. It's a very functional well put together game. They just have a toxic community.

The PF I know is literally Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit so, please, tell me about all the effort Paizo put into creating a balanced game.

(no contention that their community is toxic)

I think their problem is they have to put out too much crossover-able material under a unified system. They do keep up to date and do hotfixes like FF. It's not a bad company. They take feedback. Part of the fun for the players is in breaking the game, so when you hear about broken combos those were a mistake that will be looked at. The point is they know about the breakage and they work on minimizing the impact in future editions.

But if you're going to insist on bringing the RPG into it, well, two weapon fighting (ranged), recoil gloves, arm-mounted meltaguns. Welcome to the inquisiton.

*drools*

Munitorum is "A GAMES WORKSHOP LTD PUBLICATION", so it's same official as every codex.

Black Library is a subdivision of Games Workshop. That doesn't change that you can only get stuff like the novels -- or Munitorum -- from the separate Black Library website rather than GW's main page.

And of course it's as official as the codices -- or the novels. I've specifically said so above.

"Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

I know, I've checked the codex. That doesn't change anything about the argument, seeing as the TT version lacks many of the abilities listed in Inquisitor.

Like I said, the TT version seems like a middle ground between all the possibilities offered in Inquisitor.

And you don't need to change anything about the Daemonhost's base characteristics if you have abilities that provide the same effect. For example, "Impervious" obviously makes Daemonhosts a lot tougher ... except against silver-based weapons. "Invulnerable" has the same effect ... except against hits to the head and chest. So it would be wrong to change Toughness as this characteristic protects against anything .

TT doesn't have these special weapons or location-based damage, though, so there's no reason why it should not be streamlined into a simple bonus to the characteristics.

To be honest I don't like it. When your faith and faith only stops plasma bolt (Spirit of the Martyr) it's not just placebo. Also if you can dispell enemy psy powers you should manipulate warp somehow or be blank, shouldn't you?

But it's really totally another subject.

Spirit of the Martyr doesn't "stop" plasma bolts, much like the Space Marines' Feel No Pain doesn't do it. Remember that the TT is abstracted -- I've already described how Toughness saves should be regarded, and it's the same here.

Coincidentally, in 6th Edition, Spirit of the Martyr actually IS Feel No Pain.

Likewise, any Human is capable of resisting psychic powers on some level, because the Warp reacts to everyone's thoughts and emotions. This is what Deny The Witch represents in the current ruleset. In 6E, Sisters get a +1 bonus to it ... like the Black Templars. You can see how there is a connection between the monastic lifestyle of both organisations, and how it enables abilities such as these.

But yes, it is another subject. You brought it up, so if you'd prefer to move it to its own thread or private messages, just say so.

I would like to toss my hat into this...

RPG Game Balance

The best "instance" of a whole game system that was balanced was D&D's 4E system before the game creep of later source book material came into play...

It presented a homogenized system whereby almost every character was the same in overall output - granted I am not splitting hairs herein and going over specifics, rather mines is a generalization for sake of conversation...

The best example of a game system with NO Balance was Palladium's RIFTs; in that system players can range from lowly "Rogue Scientists" (i.e. a normal human) to things like actual "Dragons" (yes you can be a dragon amongst many other types of "things' LOL).

Either system is good - just depends on what your aiming for and if your players "like" said system (some people wont like the idea of one player trumping alll the others in the group).

Certain games straddle the middle - like AD&D 2nd Edition; in that system no class was balanced against the others and the "power levels" range more laong the curve of 1 to 20th level rather than on a level per level basis.

Now back to FFG's 40k RPGs

From what Ive gathered Deathwatch & Black Crusade are a tier above what characters in Rogue Trader may square off against; which I think was the intent - DW / BC equates to a play style and game flavour that differs from the "normals" aka humans found in Rogue Trader, Dark Heresy, and Only War....

If your just looking to battle royal everything together then that's your play style (nothing wrong with that I might add), but that's not the intent nor the flavor commonly expressed in various forms of fluff. For the rest of us - FFG seemingly created these differences of "power" to match the lore given - that represents community consensus (i.e. we are all on the same page and have certain expectations derived from a common source).

How I Handle any game "Mix"

Say the players have an objective / motive / aim (i.e. an adventure to complete); well they start off and somewhere along the lines go off the proverbial road - that's when I might present a totally random encounter / challenge - it is only here that a lowly human can face off against the possible worst that the 40k Universe has to offer - otherwise if they stick to the proverbial road - well then all of their encounters / challenges will be scaled to their power level (as intended in all published adventures).

That's basically it - if your not focused and the game is going off the rails - time for some random encounters that may be under power, over powered , or just right - but any of that is a gamble (thus we are playing a game). Otherwise stick to the focus of play will only result in challenging yet satisfying play that's both fair and balanced.

FIN

Stay GAMING

Morbid

The best "instance" of a whole game system that was balanced was D&D's 4E system before the game creep of later source book material came into play...

It seems supplements/expansion to a system always come with a risk to wreak havoc on balancing. DH1 was also rather balanced by itself; it's only after the 3rd or 4th book that things started to get iffy. Here's hoping that DH2 will be a bit more cautious when it gets to introducing more options.

After all, new stuff does not always have to be better than the old, it just has to be different.

From what Ive gathered Deathwatch & Black Crusade are a tier above what characters in Rogue Trader may square off against; which I think was the intent - DW / BC equates to a play style and game flavour that differs from the "normals" aka humans found in Rogue Trader, Dark Heresy, and Only War....

If your just looking to battle royal everything together then that's your play style (nothing wrong with that I might add), but that's not the intent nor the flavor commonly expressed in various forms of fluff. For the rest of us - FFG seemingly created these differences of "power" to match the lore given - that represents community consensus (i.e. we are all on the same page and have certain expectations derived from a common source).

I certainly agree that each of the games caters to a unique playstyle and "power level"; it's why they have unique rules that don't exist elsewhere, or why the same NPC/weapon has different stats depending on which game you're looking at. I just don't think this is a good way to portray a persistent universe ... though I understand that this is merely a matter of personal preference, meaning whether you'd want to focus more on world simulation, or the microcosmos of the protagonists.

For example, Deathwatch has been compared to the movie "300", whereas Only War is more like "Saving Private Ryan". Both look at the same world, but they use a different lens to portray things in slightly different ways. One to be more epic, the other to be more gritty.

The rest of your argument is trickier, for the consensus you mention shifts and changes depending on the players you're looking at. We all have slightly different ideas of the setting because the material we've read allows for a million different interpretations.

Perhaps some of the characters you can play in Dark Heresy have also just been bad choices. If we are really supposed to think of DH as a "low tier" game where people aren't as capable, then it should not offer PC archetypes that have always been described to be the polar opposite.

For the record, I still think that Dark Heresy is not actually supposed to be that game. It can be low tier, and it can be high tier, all depending on how your Inquisitor operates and what sort of enemies you face, from leading a raid on a hideout full of cultists with autoguns, all the way to fighting side by side with Space Marines against an infestation of Genestealers or a Khorne daemon incursion. Because certainly, this is the stuff that happens in the setting all the time, and as such what may have influenced our expectations.

This is why stuff like power armour is in the books at all; it wouldn't be offered if FFG really expected you to run a game consisting solely of ragged gangers, retired infantrymen and petty thieves.

To turn back to your comparison to D&D: Dungeons & Dragons only offers one ruleset for everyone as well, rather than giving Dragonborn, Genasi, Warforged etc their own rulesets. Because in the end, it is one world.

Coincidentally, I recall D&D trying to address the balancing issue by simply giving characters of superior races a level penalty, which is a somewhat similar approach to the suggested XP-based unlock where some types of characters would only become playable once the party has gained a certain veterancy.

And of course it's as official as the codices -- or the novels. I've specifically said so above.

I couldn't find any direct word "hey, marine weapons and Sororite weapons are the same". Quite the opposite - marines and Sororites ARE using different patterns of boltgun, question is how they are different. Ok, they released Munitorium.

I can definitly understand why is this happening, by the way. But it's logic, not some cite; cite I found for this time just give me a situation, not as it happens.

But even if this weren't the case and you wish to go with Munitorum instead -- FFG's current stats for bolt weapons actually bring Human bolters closer to lasguns than Astartes bolters. They'd be S3 weapons in the TT.

Oh, THIS I can agree; not sure, but it can be possible, demand some thinking about. Problem is I can't say for sure where S3 ends and S4 starts, and how Tearing comes into account.

Also Flamer (S4 in TT) have 1d10+4, and human bolter is better.

On a sidenote, I have to say it's pretty funny that Munitorum claims that people are incapable of lifting Astartes boltguns when we see Hive Gangers and Imperial Guardsmen single-handedly operating heavy bolters . Different writers, different ideas, I guess.

It does, but not to T - Daemonhost have 4++ Save. No complaining here.

Ok, let's say that request - "If you believe that GW studio material would pose an obstacle to handing Marine-level weapons to Human characters, please cite a source." - completed, isn't it?

I was thinking more about codices, WD articles, anything actually coming from the core GW studio, the people writing the tabletop game and its spin-offs. I apologise if that was misleading or unclear; I've developed a habit of simply calling codex "GW studio" and novels "Black Library" etc, even though both are different departments of the same company. Same with Forge World, which is also a different design team.

The codex fluff I was referring to about Sororitas wargear is in the 3E Codex Witch Hunters:

"The Sisters of Battle are exceptionally well equipped, with armour and weapons the equal of any Space Marine Chapter."

Needless to say, this line was part of my core understanding from the army, especially as this was also one of the first codices I have ever read. I understand how you could develop a different image if you read only Space Marine codices, though. As mentioned before, each codex generally focuses on hyping the one army it features. Just like the Imperial Guard codex makes the Guardsmen look more important than the Space Marines.

None of those books actually contradict each other, they just have a different focus in their descriptions, and sometimes sound as if they are simply omitting things that don't directly serve the hype. It's why I think that you need to read them all in order to form "the greater picture".

Either way, I hope this helps to understand how I came to my current thinking. This is just how I got to know the army.

Also Flamer (S4 in TT) have 1d10+4, and human bolter is better.

Astartes Flamers in this RPG have 1d10+9, similar to their boltguns (which also have S4 in the TT). In the tabletop, they just use the same flamers and the same bolters for everyone -- although it's difficult to say how exactly the Flame trait would factor into the calculation. After all, TT rounds are longer than turns in the RPG, so technically, you could say that the tabletop Strength might include 0-2 turns of flame damage from being set on fire?

I am probably overthinking it, though. The TT designers obviously didn't think about Dark Heresy when they wrote those stats.

For comparison, in Inquisitor, flamethrowers do 2d6+4 damage (6-16; ~11), compared to boltguns at 2d10+4 (6-24; ~15) and lasguns at 2d6 (2-12; ~7) .. though at the end of every turn, a character on fire has a 50% chance of suffering the same damage again (otherwise the fire just goes out).

Yup, it is. Maybe that heavy bolters are different pattern as well?

They certainly are (even in my opinion), but are you truly thinking that a Human heavy bolter shooting cal 1.00 rounds on full auto is lighter and smaller and has less recoil than an Astartes boltgun that fires cal .75 rounds in bursts?

This is less of a burden than This ?

(and keep in mind that codex fluff describes Space Marines to be about 7 feet high (as opposed to some of the novels who make them twice as big as normal people)

They put a lot of work into balance. Listening to the players. I don't enjoy playing PF, but I do appreciate that the community does spend a lot of time finding broken combinations and then the developers fix before the next edition. It's a very functional well put together game. They just have a toxic community.

The PF I know is literally Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit so, please, tell me about all the effort Paizo put into creating a balanced game.

(no contention that their community is toxic)

Seeing you call a community "toxic" is pretty funny - you'd fit right into my definition of toxic (as well as the people who seem to come on Dakka entirely to moan about 40k).

Although I don't know much about the Pathfinder community - if they're any worse I don't mean to insult you! At least your comments can be interesting when they're more than "This system is ****, and you've stumbled on one of the huge reasons why this is so. [Play something else.]"

If they are any worse I probably don't want to ever start playing Pathfinder

On topic:

In my opinion, imbalance in games is not important as long as what's on each powerlevel is clearly indicated.

This is why the Traitor Marine/Heretic distinction in Black Crusade wasn't a real problem for me, while competent psykers in Only War or Crimson Guard in DH1E were a pain to deal with - players can immediately understand a refusal of Marines ("they're OP" or "The campaign will be focused on Investigation in Imperial Space"). This kind of distinction means that the GM has a much easier time getting the balance right - and to me, the GM's ability to balance it (for example, through plot and adventure characteristics or ignoring obviously broken rules) is more important than the game's inherent balance.

This is especially true for the 40k games, where PC gear and builds can be extremely well controlled by the plot - and where DeathbyGrotz is right:

"But if you're going to insist on bringing the RPG into it, well, two weapon fighting (ranged), recoil gloves, arm-mounted meltaguns. Welcome to the inquisiton."

In any other system, that would be powergaming. In Dark Heresy or Black Crusade, that's simply a tradeoff - remember that PCs will always need to use stealth and diplomacy (because there are always bigger fish ), so although you can now kill terminators, you are now attracting unwanted attention from people who can kill you!

Note that I also love games that can be played at either a high or low powerlevel - be it like in BC with human/powerbuildhuman/Traitor Marine distinctions, or in Bc through the archetypes with different starting XP values (like in the Core Rulebook and the Supplements).

A working diplomacy system is also required for this to work well - I don't need as detailed as in the Tome of Excess, but just having good rules for it does make PCs want to build for it and base PCs on it - it also reduces the "5 full-combat PC groups" syndrome in my experience

tl;dr

Whatever the system, the game should make it easier for GMs to balance the game the way they want!

I was thinking more about codices, WD articles, anything actually coming from the core GW studio, the people writing the tabletop game and its spin-offs. I apologise if that was misleading or unclear; I've developed a habit of simply calling codex "GW studio" and novels "Black Library" etc, even though both are different departments of the same company. Same with Forge World, which is also a different design team.

Well, I believe I'm insist. Not THE SAME BOLTER, but THE SAME PROFILE. Bolters are different, there is couple of patterns, and we don't really have codex information about differences.

That's kind of abstraction, as Toughness checks for guardsman not having a scratch when he takes plasma bolt ripped through his flak armor.

This is less of a burden than This ?

But AA are best individual warriors humanity have, so if you're trying to kill AA in "equal" combat (one-to-one, same weapon), you're screwed, just because he have all that implants and training. Of course you can kill a marine. Sniper rifle - let's shoot him to the weak point from 2-3 km. Or let's make mortairs barrage. Aero support works fine too. Imperial Guard wins wars not because their vets became more marinish in years fighting, after all. It would be silly.

Once again - Munitorum IS written from core GW studio.

Who wrote it, then? Do you have proof?

Thing is... "The Sisters of Battle are exceptionally well equipped, with armour and weapons the equal of any Space Marine Chapter." Do you also believe SoB can use Astartes-tier power armor as well, without Black Carapace? I believe it's meaning they have same quality, not the same equipment as it is, such as they maintaining it and having no problem to get the best weapon and armor and gear in stock. Don't you agree?

No, I don't agree, because a gun that does 25% less raw damage cannot, by any accounts, considered "equal". I also don't see how they could retain their role as executioners of rogue Marine Chapters if their weapons are as useful as a stub gun, given how you'd have to rely on Righteous Fury to punch through their TB+AP here.

The 3E codex explicitly states that Sororitas power armour offers the same degree of armoured protection, though, as it is a spin-off of the Space Marine armour line. The lack of a Black Carapace means they don't have access to the same level of strength enhancement, and they've generally got fewer gadgets in their suit, which also allows it to have a slimmer profile.

This piece of fluff is also what leads me to believe it'd be the same for their guns: same damage, but fewer extras. It would make sense to follow the same thought in construction, I think.

Bolters are different, there is couple of patterns, and we don't really have codex information about differences.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the bolter looks like anyways, because the actual damage is done by the projectile. In real world firearms, barrel length and type (rifled/smooth) can have an effect on velocity and penetration, but in 40k, the "bullet" is brought up to speed by its own miniature rocket motor.

Keep in mind that second is, by all means, bolt pistol, not boltgun. And I definitly know that this weight triple that this - and this guns using same carthrige and was developed in same time. Also trust me first have FAR HEAVIER recoil that second even if it weight 9 kg vs 3 kg using same carthrige. Also they have very similiar lenght - with 1173 at first and 1089 at second.

It is a boltgun, not a bolt pistol. Bolt pistols look like this . Note how it doesn't have the handle piece for the other arm, which is really the only difference between both weapons. They fire the same ammunition, after all. Also, bolt pistols don't have slings to be carried over your shoulder ...

And your PKM argument only seems to suggest that weight and recoil can easily be reduced just by building a better weapon. Are you sure you want to continue? Because that sounds more like something I should use when defending the idea of Humans shooting Astartes-grade ammo.

As they can already do even in 1E Dark Heresy with the Angelus-pattern bolt carbine, by the way.

As I remember (I was intrested about it but long ago) 7 feet is "naked" marine height, but when you clad him into Astartes Power Armor...

How many feet do you think Space Marine high heels add?

Let's just agree that they're not double the size of a normal man, that should be easy enough.

Space Marines can win all that battles, but you need Guard to win a war.

But AA are best individual warriors humanity have, so if you're trying to kill AA in "equal" combat (one-to-one, same weapon), you're screwed, just because he have all that implants and training. Of course you can kill a marine. Sniper rifle - let's shoot him to the weak point from 2-3 km. Or let's make mortairs barrage. Aero support works fine too. Imperial Guard wins wars not because their vets became more marinish in years fighting, after all. It would be silly.

If the Space Marines could really "win all battles", the Imperium would be a lot better off and the Sororitas couldn't stand a chance in their attempts to purge wayward Chapters. You don't need sniper rifles or mortar barrages to kill them. A single Guardsman with a plasma gun can suffice, just like the guy who almost killed Primarch Horus. Even a simple lasgun can suffice as you can see in the TT. Or what about Colonel Straken who strangled a CSM Lord to death in close combat. If that's not "more marinish", what else is?

... I guess we'll just never find common ground on this subject either, huh? Agree to disagree once again?

Seeing you call a community "toxic" is pretty funny - you'd fit right into my definition of toxic (as well as the people who seem to come on Dakka entirely to moan about 40k).

Although I don't know much about the Pathfinder community - if they're any worse I don't mean to insult you! At least your comments can be interesting when they're more than "This system is ****, and you've stumbled on one of the huge reasons why this is so. [Play something else.]"

If they are any worse I probably don't want to ever start playing Pathfinder

If that's the worst thing you've heard from someone in this hobby you should count your blessings.

Who wrote it, then? Do you have proof?

I believe I can answer this.

"Not all Wars of Faith are Crusades - sometimes the Ecclesiarchy is allowed to pursue its own ends without outside interference. This are true Wars of Faith, when the Ecclesiarchy prepares to battle an enemy for the sake of its beliefs rather than to quell a rebellion or to occupy an alien-held planet.

When not part of a Crusade, Wars of Faith are funded and organized solely by the Ecclesiarchy and contain only warriors from the Adepta Sororitas and Frateris Milita, led by members of the Frateris clergy . The Ecclesiarch does not have supreme authority to order Wars of Faith, the adventure must be approved by by the other High Lords of Terra.

War of Faith are sometimes assisted by the forces of the other High Lords and even the armies of the Imperial Guard ."

Army list in CJ includes Assasins. You can also notice that's not real killing full chapter but assasination of Chapter Master and his closest associates, taken by surprise. Also as you can notice they don't sent in dozen stormtroopers with plasma guns just to finish this circus and go home. You need something special to finish SM, and AS is something special. They, not just their weapons or equipment.

So, the answer - Adepta Sororitas are core of War of Faith, but they're accompanied by any force Inquisitor belive needed. Including IG armies and IN fleets. With artillery and bombardment. Orbital Strike in 3rd Witch Hunters codex, remember?

And sometimes Ordo Hereticus do it without Sororites at all - "often" isn't "always".

And your PKM argument only seems to suggest that weight and recoil can easily be reduced just by building a better weapon. Are you sure you want to continue? Because that sounds more like something I should use when defending the idea of Humans shooting Astartes-grade ammo.

If the Space Marines could really "win all battles", the Imperium would be a lot better off and the Sororitas couldn't stand a chance in their attempts to purge wayward Chapters. You don't need sniper rifles or mortar barrages to kill them. A single Guardsman with a plasma gun can suffice, just like the guy who almost killed Primarch Horus. Even a simple lasgun can suffice as you can see in the TT.

Ok; why bother with Space Marines then? Why spending 55 years to create new chapter, when you can just take 10 guardsmen with lasguns and use them to vipe everything? Why bother with Primarches, if Primarch can't kill Primarch, but every armyman can?

Also you don't need Sororites.

Very Tau way. I like Tau.

It's compilation of different articles written by different humans

So you don't actually know who the writers are.

I've defined "GW studio" to refer to the people working on the codices and WD. As a company, Games Workshop publishes all sorts of material, including novels and Forge World books, but it's different people writing them, and as such they may contain different ideas.

I believe I can answer this.

Your answer doesn't line up with the material provided and is actively misleading. You talk of Imperial Guard regiments that are not allowed in the Strike Force list, you make it sound as if the Astartes would just let them walk in and attack their leader without any resistance, and you act as if Assassins are always a part of the mission rather than the "0-1" option they are. The fluff even specifically mentions the Sisters of Battle to be "the only force outside the Adeptus Astartes" capable of invading a Space Marine stronghold.

I think you should just admit that you'd simply prefer the Sororitas not to be on par with the Space Marines, in spite of GW having written just that on their very own website.

Wait. Better? You think PKM is better than AK or AK is better that PKM?

They are different, usable in different situations. AK have better recoil compensation but lesser bullet power and shooting rate. PKM has better bullet power but it's recoil effectively demand some stabilisators. Thing is what do you have and what do you can use.

We were talking about weight and recoil, not situational circumstances.

And the PKM has better bullet power because it does not use the same cartridge as the AK. It's effectively shooting sniper rounds .

Yeah. That means that bolter sucks in close combat, because "bullet", with all it's hard gaseus core (khm, physics), will not have time to speed itself to big speed and make some damage.

Wait. Isn't Space Marines like bolter EXACTLY because it's good close combat weapon and it's perfectly fits their assault style?

Technology in the setting seems to have overcome this "gyrojet" problem:

"It is shot from the barrel under low velocity, its own propellant igniting once the missile is clear of the barrel. [...] Effective range is not great, and they are thus ideally suited to a shock/assault role."

-- 2E Wargear

We don't have any information about the burn time and acceleration of the miniature rocket motor, but arguably, setting dictates that it seems to suffice for the desired result. Perhaps it is a very short but high boost in velocity? Otherwise, bolters would gain damage/penetration the farther they travel, which is not represented in any of the rulesets, and apparently contradicted by the range comment in Wargear.

Ok; why bother with Space Marines then? Why spending 55 years to create new chapter, when you can just take 10 guardsmen with lasguns and use them to vipe everything? Why bother with Primarches, if Primarch can't kill Primarch, but every armyman can?

Also you don't need Sororites.

Because Imperium.

Humanity in the setting is all about ridiculous traditions and gimping itself. What do the Salamanders gain from only accepting recruits who are good blacksmiths, for example? Yes, you don't need Space Marines. You also don't need Sororitas. Technically, you could write them off as a waste of resources.

They're still nice to have in some situations, however. The single Space Marine represents the most efficient and fearsome combination of combat prowess and resilience you could pack in a square meter, which is important in a setting where space travel isn't widely available, or in battle situations where the environment puts limitations onto how many troops you can deploy.

10 Guardsmen could replace a single Space Marine (fun fact: Index Astartes has a quote by Rogal Dorn that does actually say that a Space Marine equals ten normal troops), but they also require about five times as much room and you could only put two Guardsmen in a breach that could be occupied by a Space Marine. In some situations, it might not make a difference. In others, it could be the difference that decides the outcome of the battle.

Because when you analyse the tactics employed by the Marine Chapters, you'll see that their edge isn't some sort of invulnerability to small arms or a supposed ability to use unique weapons -- but rather a combination of increased resilience, state-of-the-art wargear, remarkable battlefield adaptability and very high force mobility.

This is why, for example, the 2E Guard Codex mentions that the Space Marines are usually the first to respond to a distress call, but they have to get the Guard to help them against bigger armies.

This is why, for example, many Space Marine Chapters had to withdraw from Armageddon following the Season of Fire, because without their mobility, they'd die to overwhelming enemy numbers like the Celestial Lions.

And, of course, this is why the Emperor chose to fill his limited number of troop transports not with normal soldiers toting lasguns and flak armour, but rather genetically enhanced supersoldiers with power armour and bolt weapons.

You could indeed say the Space Marines in M41 are a relic of the Great Crusade, who have overstayed their actual necessity and are kept around merely because of the legend around them as the Emperor's spiritual sons and heroes of the people.

That would be a pretty grimdark conclusion.

But fitting for a grimdark setting.

Astartes Flamers in this RPG have 1d10+9, similar to their boltguns (which also have S4 in the TT). In the tabletop, they just use the same flamers and the same bolters for everyone -- although it's difficult to say how exactly the Flame trait would factor into the calculation. After all, TT rounds are longer than turns in the RPG, so technically, you could say that the tabletop Strength might include 0-2 turns of flame damage from being set on fire?

I am probably overthinking it, though. The TT designers obviously didn't think about Dark Heresy when they wrote those stats.

TT rounds are longer thant turns in the RPG and since, Space Marines have difficulty killing one guardsman in a fight in open ground.

Truth is, if we check the stats of anything on the TT, Space Marines are less competent than the average soldier of any modern army.

Even if I tend to see a common ground between FFG/BL and the core stuff of GW, there is something to be sure:

-We, nowaday, can produce very very good soldiers with a lot of training and good wargear. Soldiers that are at a level that when we send them against regular militia (Irakian Troops, Talibans, etc.), they just get through without a lot of loss. Hell, we can even compare american troops to Viet-Kong during the vietnam war. Say that 'Murrica lost the war as much as you want, when you compare losts from both sides, you know that amercian performed very well.

And this, with "ordinary soldiers against cheap soliders".

Now, take into accounts how "impossible" it is to win against a drugged professional athlete in sports, when the other professional athletes train as much as they have time in their life.

I practice melee combat close to 6 hours a day (and I'm not even close to what a Space Marine does), and I already dominate tons of adversaries in sword/polearm/knife fights. And I'm not even nearly as good as teachers I've got. And see the difference.

What I know is that a great part of your performance relies on many more things than juste training. State of mind (agressivity in battle, lack of fear of defeat/death, competitivity, pride, etc.) is the greatest part. Then comes the training (how much does you know to put in practice your state of mind? How fast can you do it? How adaptable are you to combat condition? How much are your reflexes upped by trainingm etc,). As much as training in importance is how you are genetically (are you naturally strong, fast, good hand-eyes coordination, do you think fast, can you develop reflexes rapidly), these things are important and can be trained a lot, but as much as you train yourself to be nimble and fast, you won't beat a lion at it (or whatever, not many people will ever succeed in it).

And a part close to training in importance is the gear. Having a flabar sword (with wich I began fighting) that weighs a lot (3-4. lbs) will endanger you even against a simple beginner with a good sword.

Now, take Space Marines.

-State of mind: hypno conditionning, lack of fear of death, defeat, etc. They won't even hesitate where even the most trained men would.

-Training: At least something close to 50 hours a week (you know, when they don't fight, which is a good training, they fight for training as a job), they train all the conditions of combat (balistic, melee, tactical), and their expercience gives them a lot of references and adaptability. Their already great refelxes and physical performances are being brought up by a rigorous full-time training.

-Genetically: Where Space Marines beats every normal man. They are naturally stronger, tougher and faster. They also have good eyesight, fast thinking and great agressivity in combat. They are made, physically, to be predators.

-Gear: I think I've got nothing else to say.

This conclusion here doesn't impress anyone, but I'll tell you one thing that help me a lot accept how a regular Space Marine can just kick in a door and kill 50 guardsmen in a row, is that modern shock troops can nearly do this.

I wouldn't give so much ressources and so much time and gear to the Space Marines, if they are just to get the difference they have on the tabletop game or in Dawn of War, or in many other sources (including manybooks).

Yes a lucky guardsman can oneshot a space marine with a plasma bolt to the head. Yes a super trained guardsman that saw 20 years of campaign and decided and was able to get the must of each fight to become a better warrior could face up a Space Marine and wins because he has more experience and LUCK that the marine, but no.

I don't think Space Marines shouldn't get gunned through the chest with a lasrifle and stay up. I don't think that creating such soliders would still mean giving them the same bolt gun that every **** 1 billions of commissar in the galaxy gets, I don't think I would let those guys have so much liberties in the face of the imperial law if they are just a little superior shock troops.

In my opinion, DH stats of Space Marines are representative of what they should be. I've seen enough of my players at high level, with good gear and careful planning, kill space marines as much if melee than firefight. But it was alsways a "holy sh*t" moment.

And if Space Marines aren't that threatening to high level characters, then the Galaxy doesn't need them, or if they're not better than what the table top presents them to be, then they should be cheaper to do and there should be more, or just dump the genetic project of the Space Marines and do bionic soliders like the mechanicus do, and stop losing time a ressources for the Adeptus Astartes.

I see the setting as less gimdark in such things as I can Understand the Imperium to be so much bloated, but I don't see it as being impractical at all. And if the Space Marines are as bad as in tabletop compare to what they cost and means, the Imperium would certainly dump them.

On the other hand, I do not have any problem with the fact that you could like the idea of "useless" space marines maintained by an idiotic/ignorant Empire, it could be a fun interpretation.

But in my opinion, and my little martial experience, if Space Marines can't at least perform like they do in DH, they're not worth half the work put in them.

Someone mentioned 4E D&D, and I think that's probably the gold standard of having a complex and balanced game. It's pretty rigorous in terms of encounter design and balance, and is possibly the only rpg in existence (other than maybe Strike! which is based on it) in which the GM is given a set of rules that, when followed, allow him to be as hard as possible on the players without having to worry about balancing after the fact. 4E also went ahead and created one of the best written RPGs in terms of technical manual writing ever as well. However, in order to achieve this, 4E also pretty strongly demands that the players and GM follow its rules as written, and that certain game mechanics exist primarily as game mechanics and aren't bothered with trying to make up narrative explanations for them. As far as the latter goes, I personally don't think there's any more abstraction to "you can use this power every time you take a short rest" versus "this power arbitrarily lasts for 4 hours!" but lots of people disagree. I think 4E demonstrated that in order to make a balanced RPG that is also complex, you have to modify your narrative to fit the mechanics, rather than the other way around. It also takes a lot of work, math, and playtesting to make a game like that.

The biggest issue with a lot of complex RPGs that eschew balance in favor of narrative is that by nature of their complexity they place too much emphasis on unbalanced mechanics, and that they often provide little to no guidance to the GM or players on how to use these unbalanced mechanics. Games like DH2E could work a lot better if they had much more specific guidelines for the GM on how to run things, how to create encounters, etc. Specific guidelines as in "here are some hard numbers that we arrived at through playtesting." This would require playtesting like you see in video games, where it's some form of "try running into this wall 1000 different ways to see if one of them lets you accidentally fall through." That kind of thing is pretty expensive to do, though.

People have already mentioned that the issues with imbalance are that DH2E emphasizes combat too much (a combat character can more easily roleplay through a social encounter than a non-combat character can do so in a structured combat), and presents a lot of options that are not very good. The best way to deal with both of those is to either give the very specific advice to players and GMs I mentioned above on how to play the "game" parts of DH2E, or to de-emphasize the mechanics in a way that makes the poor options have less impact on outcomes.

So you don't actually know who the writers are.

Your answer doesn't line up with the material provided and is actively misleading. You talk of Imperial Guard regiments that are not allowed in the Strike Force list, you make it sound as if the Astartes would just let them walk in and attack their leader without any resistance, and you act as if Assassins are always a part of the mission rather than the "0-1" option they are.

I talk about that Imperial Guard regiments that are allowed in Witch Hunter list. Ah, yes, Space Marines are allowed too.

I think you should just admit that you'd simply prefer the Sororitas not to be on par with the Space Marines, in spite of GW having written just that on their very own website.

We don't have any information about the burn time and acceleration of the miniature rocket motor, but arguably, setting dictates that it seems to suffice for the desired result. Perhaps it is a very short but high boost in velocity? Otherwise, bolters would gain damage/penetration the farther they travel, which is not represented in any of the rulesets, and apparently contradicted by the range comment in Wargear.

My thoughts exactly.

That means "their bolts are active so it's nothing with a barrel" is not nessesary true. We don't know.

After all, bolt pistol have lesser effective distance as a boltgun; they shoot same bolt, true? So I personally believe there is SOMETHING with the barrel, I just haven't a slightest idea what.

You could indeed say the Space Marines in M41 are a relic of the Great Crusade, who have overstayed their actual necessity and are kept around merely because of the legend around them as the Emperor's spiritual sons and heroes of the people.

And if Space Marines aren't that threatening to high level characters, then the Galaxy doesn't need them, or if they're not better than what the table top presents them to be, then they should be cheaper to do and there should be more, or just dump the genetic project of the Space Marines and do bionic soliders like the mechanicus do, and stop losing time a ressources for the Adeptus Astartes.

You could also say that the galaxy needs them because they are an army, whereas those individuals capable of standing up to them are not. I don't think having individual heroes who are capable of approaching their combat prowess would in any way threaten their dominion as protectors of mankind, because there's a million of them, and only thousands of Inquisitors, Battle Sisters, Guard Vets etc to go around. And to top it off, the latter tend to have a higher rate of attrition as well, where a Space Marine might just need a week in the apothecarium and maybe a bionic limb.

On a sidenote, I almost agree that the TT isn't a good representation of the Space Marines. But not because of their stats, but rather because they don't get to play out all their advantages, most of all their mobility. Sure, on one hand we could assume it is represented in the fact that an encounter is balanced even thouhg you show up with a much smaller force than the enemy, but it's still an assumption.

It gets more obvious once we look at Epic 40k, where force maneouvers play a much bigger role and your tiny force of Space Marines will get shot to bits if they don't act clever and focus on using the maximum amount of force on the enemy's weakest spot. That is how the Space Marines are described in the fluff, too: by M41, they aren't frontline infantry, they are special forces that flank armies, infiltrate enemy HQs and take out strategic targets by combining speed, firepower and resilience into a deadly package. It's not hard to kill them in a straight battle, the trouble is that they have a tendency of dictating the terms of the battle!

"Space Marines are entrusted with all sorts of perilous missions, such as lightning raids behind enemy lines, infiltration attacks to capture vital positions, and tunnel fights in enemy held cities. They also undertake long voyages of planetary exploration and conquest on behalf of the Imperium, earmarking planets which are too well defended so that they can be attacked later with the support of the Imperial Guard."

-- GW Inquisitor & Epic Armageddon : Forces of the Imperium, The Space Marines

But yes, ultimately it comes down to preferred perception. I admit I enjoy looking at the Imperium as wasteful and inefficient, and to pick apart what sounds like legends and myths to look for a truth at their core. I'd almost call it an anti-epic portrayal, were it not for my belief that the degree of gritty realism thus inserted actually makes for a more compelling and thrilling experience. At least to me, heroics get kind of boring if you can expect them, and heroes are boring if they come across as invulnerable. I never could get into superhero comics due to this preference, and it has coloured my preferred interpretation of 40k as well, to the point that I flat out ridicule some things such as the stuff that happens in the Horus Heresy novels.

It depends on what we think is "epic", and how much of it we'd like to see in the setting, I suppose.

First of all please don't "should" me. You should to admit you just love Adepta Sororitas so you don't see the obvious and don't read what I'm writing.

Considering that you've engaged in a three-page discussion trying very hard to reinterpret and refute direct codex citations, I have a hard time believing that you don't have an agenda. You've put way too much energy into this to have just a passing interest.

But since it seems that at least one of us isn't reading what the other is writing, as you put it, I'm sure you agree that there's no need to continue what has been a rather futile discussion from the beginning.

That is how the Space Marines are described in the fluff, too: by M41, they aren't frontline infantry, they are special forces that flank armies, infiltrate enemy HQs and take out strategic targets by combining speed, firepower and resilience into a deadly package. It's not hard to kill them in a straight battle, the trouble is that they have a tendency of dictating the terms of the battle!

I see them that way too, but by experience, even with simple weaponry (lasgun, chainswords, or bolters), Marines do not hold for long again competent fighter. And I speak about FFG Marines. So I think indeed that sending 100 space marines with those stats, on an open battlefield, without using them intelligently, will see them torn to pieces. I just think that 41st millenium equipement and bio-engineering should give something like this.

But at this point, it is really a matter of preference and how I suppose it should go in the 41st millenium, more than how it is written. As much as Abnett, I've got my "alexverse" haha.

Considering that you've engaged in a three-page discussion trying very hard to reinterpret and refute direct codex citations, I have a hard time believing that you don't have an agenda. You've put way too much energy into this to have just a passing interest.

Sororitas do not target space marines with bolter. If you look at their army list, you will see they have one thing that makes them ideal for hunting marines in an urban environment, which is what the interior of a fortress monastary is: Melta. Melta everywhere. Melta and artillery. They're pretty much built to wreck marines.

Sororitas do not target space marines with bolter. If you look at their army list, you will see they have one thing that makes them ideal for hunting marines in an urban environment, which is what the interior of a fortress monastary is: Melta. Melta everywhere. Melta and artillery. They're pretty much built to wreck marines.

Yup. Artillery will work just fine, you don't even need to enter fortress monastery.

Melta works too by the way, if you can bring it to marine and hit it with a stream.

Back to what the OP was saying; personally I don't think balance is as important as many people think it is in an RPG. Considering it is the main job of the GM to either tell the group or with the group setting up the game, what their goals are: "are we going to make a beer and pretzels game? Or maybe an investigation heavy game?" Once that has been done, the players and GM should have an idea of what to build upon. Even that being said, a good gamer or just one who likes to cause problems will often play outside their roles.

For example I have a blank tech priest in my current group. He has a fellowship of 26 before suffering the penalties of being a blank. His character though wants to be helpful and desperately wants comradery and so he always jumps at any chance to be useful particularly when dealing with people. My player even took a bunch of social skills and just to reflect that his character has trained himself and thinks he is adequate at doing such tasks. He fails. Nearly all of the time. Should balance step in and make him succeed more? No. The role his character plays is perfect in this particular regard. Also it often leads to a good laugh or memorable outcome.

For me and my group of players, its both a wargame and a role playing game. The roleplaying I make very hard, I put in puzzles, I give investigation with false leads if they fail tests, my players need to be not only clever in person by putting together clues they have gathered (unless they spend fate points in which case, I'll give them a slap on the ass in the right direction) but also must do the appropriate investigations. The balance only comes in when I make combat encounters and even then it is very basic: I make the main villan or BBEG killable by their standards of character development and equipment. Even then though, I do not balance the combat, they are almost always outnumberd and sometimes even outgunned. But their roleplaying up to that point dictates how difficult the combat will be.

Did my player learn of a tainted machine cult which is supplying the villain with corrupted plasma guns? They did, but they choose to ignore it for whatver reason; now the BBEG and his muscle have a couple of plasma. Did the players hunt down the rogue psyker who they have been hiding before attacking the BBEG? No? Then in addition to his minions equipped with plasma guns there will also be a powerful rogue psyker. See where I am going with this? I don't care what the balance or what is fair for any combat encounter, this is not a video game. This is a craft your own story and your decisions and actions should effect the outcome.

I just remembered a hilarious example. My players went to a warrior planet (based off a Sparta but 40k) also a Space Marine recruiting world. One of my players wanted tried to convince the Planetary Governer Champion to give him his Relic chain blade. He failed, but the Champion told he had won it from a duel to the death of the previous champion, if he challenged him and defeated him, it would be his. At this point, I described what he had equipped, how tough he looked and how regal and valorous he seemed, on a planet dedicated tot he warrior code. The player persisted and challged him. He lost and died. Burned a fate point and lost his left arm. Was it fair and balanced? No. Should it have been? No. If he had a combat heavy character (which he didn't) he may have won.

That being said, if you do not give clues, or a guiding hand to a confused player or group or they simply are not having fun because its too hard, you are again failing as a GM. Adapt and remember rule zero.

@Olifant

That's not the GMs job, it's the game itselfs job. The rules should tell you what kind of play the game is designed for and how to run and use the mechanics. It shouldn't be the GMs job to eyeball things as they relate to the mechanics.

It never fails to amuse me when people argue against game balance by saying it's the GM's job to take an unbalanced game and try to balance it.

It never fails to amuse me when people argue against game balance by saying it's the GM's job to take an unbalanced game and try to balance it.

"Argue against game balance?" No!

Argue against game balance over realism and versatility, especially in a simulationist system.

Game balance is very important, but it should be second to the "feeling" of the game - for example, Black Crusade was not in any stretch of the imagination "balanced", but it was still a great game! GMs could easily separate the game into 2 "power levels", and although it obviously still had some powerbuilds (and omnipotent psykers when played properly), it was still a fun game that perfectly caught the "feel" if the system, and that was easily adjustable to a desired power level (by allowing or disallowing the Archetypes from the supplements and/or Traitor Marines).

However, a game still needs some form of balance: no one player should be better at everything than another, and everyone should have their moment to shine! This works extremely well if the system and GM are explicit about what play-style it is designed for: who cares if your Chosen makes my renegade useless when I built him entirely because the campaign would be based around infiltrating Imperial worlds? Who cares if your PC is a combat god that can kill anything in one turn when we're playing eclipse phase, a game generally involving a lot of loss of gear and investigation?

However, games like d&d 3.0 that had monks being entirely useless at almost every level when compared to good spellcasters or even rogues, you know that there's a serious problem!