There would have to be a lot of rewriting to make playing Space Marines a balanced choice versus a hive scummer or Imperial Guardsman.

And who spoke of balancing a space Marine against a Hive scummer?

It's a common topic of complaint with Black Crusade - at character creation, you can choose to be a super-human in power armour, or... just a guy. The early WH40KRP games tried to get around this in a way that allows for cross-over gaming by starting each line at a different XP total, with the idea that the same total would represent a comparable power-level across the different lines ("A Rank 7 Acolyte, a Rank 5 Rogue Trader, and a Rank 2 Space Marine team up for a special mission..."), but I don't think anyone feels that it worked out as well as initially hoped...

I'd love to have a Unified Rule Set, with different options for overall starting power level (Low, Medium, High) and character options scaled correctly within each level (so, Low levels would be careers like Scummers and Guardsmen, while High would be things like Inquisitors, Temple Assassins, and Space Marines), but I agree with Lynata: that just won't happen.

Well, maybe if Disney decides to go into the RPG business and yanks the Star Wars license away from FFG. Then that would be a great '3rd Edition' gimmick to re-energize the 40K line!

It's a common topic of complaint with Black Crusade - at character creation, you can choose to be a super-human in power armour, or... just a guy. The early WH40KRP games tried to get around this in a way that allows for cross-over gaming by starting each line at a different XP total, with the idea that the same total would represent a comparable power-level across the different lines ("A Rank 7 Acolyte, a Rank 5 Rogue Trader, and a Rank 2 Space Marine team up for a special mission..."), but I don't think anyone feels that it worked out as well as initially hoped...

That's the way I also see it.

A beginning Space Marine isn't on par with a beginning acolyte in my book. The supplement (Deathwatch, it could be called) could simply add the option of playing a standalone game of space marines, giving rules for them and some rules for an "if you want to play them along other characters, a Space Marine counts as being 9000xp in comparison to a DH character". But doing it better thant it was done in the past.

Also there are several suggestions in one of the supplement books for how to handle the players if the are not actually the warrant holders, or not actual Rogue Traders yet. For example they work for THE Rouge Trader, who has them assigned to a small ship or a just to run one system. They can play small until they earn to be in the big league (and also The Warrant).

Any chance that you recall which supplement? Because that's exactly what I'd want to do if I ran an RT campaign.

Into the storm, pg 43. "Systems of Ambition" black box. It gives 3 alternate narrative options to give some twist to the theme. Short version:

1, PCs are running alongside a Rogue trader, as crew/ally/friend, and/or they can be assigned to a specific system or trade route (might even be within the borders of the imperium. They can gradually grow in power and responsibility, and eventually take over the place of the main Rogue Trader (peacefully or not)

2, Essentially the PCs have a servitor crew and no NPCs. They only have each other, and their actions and decisions have a big impact on everything

3, The Rogue Trader family is currently taking part of a Crusade - which might be limited to a smaller segment of space, giving it a more war oriented theme, but also the GM can set boundaries and goals more easily.

Also, I think even the core book mentions in chapter 11. that not all warrant comes with unlimited authority to dwell withing xeno heresies. If their warrant does not allowed them to make contact with xenos (apart from blasting them to pieces) then they are limited to the human inhabited sections of the expanse.

Warrant can also have conditions as well, chapter 12. The group might have to reconquer a system, and then settle into ,and keep the power (from constant xeno or other threat). Or they have to create a new mining settlement at some random system which was firs explored by Arch-Magos Explorator Name It, or maybe The Great Winterscale Himself two millenia ago (but they never considered interesting enough to do anything with it, so they just passed the info and the coordinates to The Administratum, who with miraculous speed, after 2000 years took action, and assigned the new Rogue Traders to make use of the place and develop some infrastructure)

But doing it better thant it was done in the past.

For example by simply giving everyone the same weapons, exactly as it's done in the tabletop game, GW's own d100 game, and the codex fluff.

It makes human PCs squishier when facing foes equipped the same way, but that's kind of how it should be.

For example by simply giving everyone the same weapons, exactly as it's done in the tabletop game, GW's own d100 game, and the codex fluff.

Ah yes, FFG 's ' Astartes -calibre' boltguns vs. '' mortal -calibre' boltguns... Yeah, that annoys the heck out of me, too. Boltguns are boltguns, dammit! Space Marine ones, as per GW fluff, are just higher quality , not a radically different design!

The reasons for why a single rulebook with gameline-specific splats won't work have been debated a million times.

Really? Where? Certainly not here. As for why you're wrong, let me point you to GURPS 40k.

I've said it before I dont think 40k is/was meant for balance - rather its like RIFTs by Palladium - you pick what you want to play and if that hangs you out to dry then ohh well...

This concept of absolute balance is something I've only ever see done mostly right with D&D'S 4E (which I think is a very good syetm, just not for D&D - I cant get around classic Conan now having fire-based attacks with his sword; just rubbed me the wrong way - otherwise take that system rename everything + give things a good logic bent and you have yourself a wonderful system)

I heard some of ya talk about Basterdizing D&D and GURPs back in the day prior to Fantasy Flight doing this game system. You might want to take a look at 4e then - especially if your a balance hound!

On that note - lets be frank the reason D&D is always mentioned is it has served as the foundation by which others have followed. I did think its 2 Edition was very well balanced before the creep came with character kits and BS campaign perks trying to outdo each other campaigns; umm Dark Sun lol)

I'm all for balance but recognize that - there are TIERs of play here...

Deathwatch / Black Crusade are at the top of the food chain

Rogue Trader is at upper mid range

Dark Heresy is bottom mid Tier play

Only War is "normal person" Tier

Back to RIFTs - they had a concept known as M.D.C. Damage - which equates out to 1 MDC = 100 Points of Damage; in most instances if you are caight out of your armor in that system in a fight against anything MDC based - your done!

No one had a problem with the concept - heck it even had its own logic that made sense - so I dont know why all the gripery about making a Guardsman on Par with an Astartes?!

I'll keep reading the responses as this is an interesting thread...

Stay GAMING

Morbid

Ah yes, FFG 's ' Astartes -calibre' boltguns vs. '' mortal -calibre' boltguns... Yeah, that annoys the heck out of me, too. Boltguns are boltguns, dammit! Space Marine ones, as per GW fluff, are just higher quality , not a radically different design!

This doesn't personnaly bothers me because of so many things that are like this even in the real world, but I wouldn't mind on the other side either.

For example by simply giving everyone the same weapons, exactly as it's done in the tabletop game, GW's own d100 game, and the codex fluff.

Ah yes, FFG 's ' Astartes -calibre' boltguns vs. '' mortal -calibre' boltguns... Yeah, that annoys the heck out of me, too. Boltguns are boltguns, dammit! Space Marine ones, as per GW fluff, are just higher quality , not a radically different design!

They list the "Astares Bolt pistol" at 1d10+9 where the usual one is 1D10+5

For example by simply giving everyone the same weapons, exactly as it's done in the tabletop game, GW's own d100 game, and the codex fluff.

Ah yes, FFG 's ' Astartes -calibre' boltguns vs. '' mortal -calibre' boltguns... Yeah, that annoys the heck out of me, too. Boltguns are boltguns, dammit! Space Marine ones, as per GW fluff, are just higher quality , not a radically different design!

Yea; one of the first house rules I made when I was working on my Black Crusade campaign was throwing out all of the 'legion sized weapons' crud.

And even that only applies if you compare them to, say, Guard or Arbites bolters. Powerful Inquisitors have stuff that would make Astartes turn green with envy!

I'm all for balance but recognize that - there are TIERs of play here...

Deathwatch / Black Crusade are at the top of the food chain

Rogue Trader is at upper mid range

Dark Heresy is bottom mid Tier play

Only War is "normal person" Tier

Well ... only if you go by how FFG defined the XP-span in their books. Dark Heresy also has Inquisitors, Battle Sisters, Elite Assassins -- there's a wide range of characters available, and some of them are capable of going toe-to-toe with a Space Marine or Chaos Space Marine, or the creatures they fight. Likewise, I'm sure a well-off Rogue Trader could afford some interesting stuff that you'd otherwise only see in the hands of an Inquisitor. And even Only War ... well, Colonel Straken strangling a CSM Lord may be an extreme example, but just because the characters may be disadvantaged on one level does not have to mean they should feel entirely useless. The Comrade mechanic could be a clever way to make OW characters indirectly more resilient by giving them literal meat shields.

It's not about creating a perfect balance on any aspect -- you don't even have that in Dark Heresy, not when you have robed Adepts with revolvers teaming up with carapace-armoured Arbitrators wielding boltguns. To me, "balance" in an RPG means that each participant can find a niche where they feel useful in combat. In traditional MMO terms, the only thing Space Marines really must be good at is being the party's "tank". Everything else is entirely down to what sort of weapons you issue the characters with. Because a plasma gun is a plasma gun, like the one that almost killed Horus on Reillis.

Of course, it is also a matter of interpretation; there are many different perspectives in regards to how you can see the "power levels" of the various types of units, and in a way they are all valid. But if you'd want an RPG capable of crossovers, why not pick the one that would suit it?

Sidenote #1: GW invented the Deathwatch solely to have a reason to pair Space Marines with normal people in the (also d100-based) "Inquisitor" game (see Gav Thorpe's comments in a supplemental Marine article)

Sidenote #2: As per the Index Astartes, Deathwatch Kill Teams are usually led by an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor

Why not go with the "factory default" of the original creators of the setting? Yes, of course it caters more to the Marine fans if you hype them up to the levels their novels do, but even amongst their fans not all would agree -- and would it not make for an overall more interesting game if you could actually represent the things you read about in the codices and stuff? The epic finale to the Vinculus Crusade, for example, flat out wouldn't happen if somebody tried to use DH+DW rules on that one.

It really is an eternal argument as, in the end, it just comes down to personal preferences in regards to how people would like to see X being represented. But you'd have to agree that it's weird if some of the stuff from GW's own background just wouldn't work out.

The reasons for why a single rulebook with gameline-specific splats won't work have been debated a million times.

Really? Where? Certainly not here. As for why you're wrong, let me point you to GURPS 40k.

I hope that is sarcasm, because I have personally seen it a few times on DH2/BC/OW boards here. Mainly it boils down to whether or not unaugmented humans should be able to play with Space Marines under the same rules.

Maybe a bit. I certainly don't think a general ruleset is impossible, as several, well, already exist (just not from FFG).

Just because it's a really had idea under this ruleset doesn't mean that, in a game that's actually balanced for it, it can't work. GURPS pairs up heroic tier humans (so, bona fide bad asses already) with basic space marines, for example, and what you end up getting is a fairly balanced party. The problem with DH/BC/etc. is simply that its devs don't balance squat, so making a mixed party is a nightmarish balancing act where you have to hope you get it 'just right' on faith, mostly.

Maybe a bit. I certainly don't think a general ruleset is impossible, as several, well, already exist (just not from FFG).

Just because it's a really had idea under this ruleset doesn't mean that, in a game that's actually balanced for it, it can't work. GURPS pairs up heroic tier humans (so, bona fide bad asses already) with basic space marines, for example, and what you end up getting is a fairly balanced party. The problem with DH/BC/etc. is simply that its devs don't balance squat, so making a mixed party is a nightmarish balancing act where you have to hope you get it 'just right' on faith, mostly.

I would welcome a unified ruleset if it was done well - but that isn't what I think would happen, at all. People have been clamoring for one, but people clamored for a change in DH rules and look where that got us with the beta fiasco. The better move would be to fix or remove the glaring errors the rules have now, and then maybe work to combine the different lines.

I would welcome a unified ruleset if it was done well - but that isn't what I think would happen, at all. People have been clamoring for one, but people clamored for a change in DH rules and look where that got us with the beta fiasco. The better move would be to fix or remove the glaring errors the rules have now, and then maybe work to combine the different lines.

It's not that hard to fix, anyways, now that the way some subtle flaws in the base mechanics result in problems down the road have been exposed by experience with the system. The most work would probably be in rebalancing all the various Talents.

However, it's worth to keep in mind that you're never going to please everyone. This is what the DH2 Beta has really shown. It has never been a case of the playerbase collectively wanting or rejecting anything, but simply that of individuals having different opinions. Can there be a middle ground? Now that's the truly difficult question here.

Personally , I'd simply take DH2 as-is and:

• replace the current Immunity-based injury mechanic with a Diminishing-based one (a la Inquisitor )
• replace Unnatural Characteristics with normal +X modifiers
• make sure everyone can acquire access to the same level of wargear
• introduce a two-tiered advancement system for Humans and Astartes (allowing Human characters to slowly "catch up" and lower the gap, without actually closing it altogether)

Voila.

Seems legit.

At this point, I would also lower certain damages (lascannon, assault canon, autocanon). A leg lost is a leg lost, whatever the strenght of the weapon.

Never hurts to give the weapons another pass, I suppose -- though las- and autocannon are more anti-vehicle guns.

Other weapons could probably use a slight buff .. plasma weapons should be scary. On the other hand, this could also be achieved by moving damage from Pen-only to raw, so that they're devastating against unarmoured targets, but armour still helps quite a bit ... rather than their current form, where they just nullify armour and a hit on a naked human hurts just as much as if you'd shoot someone in full carapace. I mean, that just doesn't sound right.

Maybe make critical damage worse if you don't have armor on? Didn't one of the games do that?

Personally , I'd simply take DH2 as-is and:...

There are a lot of other things I would change. One thing that I've been thinking lately is that adding a 'Defense' stat, which turns attacks into DC checks, would really help with some combat balance issues.

There are a lot of other things I would change. One thing that I've been thinking lately is that adding a 'Defense' stat, which turns attacks into DC checks, would really help with some combat balance issues.

I tried to keep it small; I'm not looking to rewrite everything.

But ... do you mean, to do away with stuff like Dodging and Parrying, effectively giving WS and BS a target number that depends on what you're attacking, like how "Defense" works in the Dragon Age P&P? Another advantage of this approach would be that it speeds up combat, I suppose.

... do you mean, to do away with stuff like Dodging and Parrying, effectively giving WS and BS a target number that depends on what you're attacking, like how "Defense" works in the Dragon Age P&P? Another advantage of this approach would be that it speeds up combat, I suppose.

Actually, I was just thinking of making the 'to hit' number variable (like Armor Class in D&D ), to prevent challenges from 'plateauing' (my DH1 party's sniper-optimized Assassin can usually only miss on a weapon jam...).

Also- holy crap, I just posted that! Do you freakin' live on this site, Lynata?

Static defense numbers speed things up considerably. Dito on doing away with range penalties and boni. Melee combat is something that can and should be handled by an opposed roll.

Actually, I was just thinking of making the 'to hit' number variable (like Armor Class in D&D ), to prevent challenges from 'plateauing' (my DH1 party's sniper-optimized Assassin can usually only miss on a weapon jam...).

Plateauing challenges are indeed another good point to bring up. Especially if someone were to go with my suggestion of removing Unnaturals, as Space Marines would have a Strength characteristic that would make most STR Tests ridiculous for them. However, I think that is perfectly fine and how a Marine should be portrayed in an RPG. Thing is: a Marine's strength should not just make most normal STR Tests redundant, but also open up new challenges that would have been nigh-impossible for almost anyone else ... such as pulling open a sealed airlock using nothing but your hands!

It's kinda weird that such things are next to impossible to portray in these RPG lines because when it comes to resolving STR Tests, Space Marines aren't actually much better than normal people. In BC, they just get Bonus DoS if they succeed using their default Human-tier Strength characteristic.

So, when it comes to a unified rulesed, one might say I'm arguing both for nerfing and buffing the Astartes at the same time for an altogether (hopefully) better gameplay experience for everyone involved.

But to get back to BS/WS: The above neatly fits into your suggestion as well, in terms of increasing the range of challenges for everyone involved. Whereas for anyone else it might be luck, your sniper would "just" have a good chance. Although it should, of course, depend on the target: in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with auto-successes, as this is simply the natural result of the PCs getting better and fighting similar enemies. The solution here would be enemies which are harder to hit.

I like the idea of how a "Defense" value could play into this concept, though I think the ideal representation might be in the form of a trait that gives a conditional (unit must be aware it is in danger) BS/WS modifier to attackers rather than making it an opposed Test. Similar to the modifiers presented by Range and Size, this could then represent a target's general experience in a warzone, affecting how they move about and making themselves a more difficult target even without having to be aware of a specific attacker -- such as zigzagging across a battlefield rather than running in a straight line. Natural quickness/agility would be another factor, of course, particularly useful for Eldar.

Bonus: finally you can represent this in the Space Marine in a proper way, rather than the current RAW trying to tell us that they're actually harder to hit than a smaller and thinner human in smaller and thinner power armour, even when both of them are not moving and completely unaware of your attack.

Hey, I'm on vacation and I like this game/community.

Static defense numbers speed things up considerably. Dito on doing away with range penalties and boni. Melee combat is something that can and should be handled by an opposed roll.

So you mean ranged combat being resolved automatically, but melee being "more involved"? That sounds interesting, too!

I'm a bit on the fence about the range modifiers, though. On one hand, most combat occurs in rather small areas where there's not much difference in ranges anyways, plus range is difficult to track if you're not playing with minis and a map. On the other hand, some weapons really ought to be better at specific ranges, such as shotguns. Or should that become a Trait of the gun? Hmmh.

All in all, I too am gravitating towards removal of range, though mostly because of the map business. I'm currently just still too sceptical to really follow through with it.

Speeding up combat should be a high priority with a '3.0' system; so, how do we do that? Reducing modifiers would go a long way, but I worry that that might neuter tactical decision-making and reduce combat to 'I roll; you roll', a la AD&D .

One minor bit of streamlining would be to base damage off of the attack's DoS, rather than a separate, unrelated roll (this would also be more colorful and realistic, i.m.o. You barely hit with 1 DoS? Flesh wound. A brutal hit with 6 DoS? Righteous Fury, baby!).

Speaking of damage, does anyone have any ideas of how to incorporate something like Beta1 's 'narrative damage' without slowing combat down even further? I like the idea of wound effects, but the Beta1 system was just too **** time-consuming...

One minor bit of streamlining would be to base damage off of the attack's DoS, rather than a separate, unrelated roll (this would also be more colorful and realistic, i.m.o. You barely hit with 1 DoS? Flesh wound. A brutal hit with 6 DoS? Righteous Fury, baby!).

I'd reserve DoS for burst fire and multiple melee strikes, although for single attacks (ranged or melee) I could think of a way to let you "convert" DoS for shifting your impact zone, so that you might transform an arm-hit into a headshot.

For the damage itself, I'd streamline it into a fixed attribute per weapon (situationally modified by various attributes such as special ammunition or, for melee weapons, the wielder's Strength).

Speaking of damage, does anyone have any ideas of how to incorporate something like Beta1 's 'narrative damage' without slowing combat down even further? I like the idea of wound effects, but the Beta1 system was just too **** time-consuming...

I'm still in favour of taking a lesson from Inquisitor here. The Beta almost seemed to try doing so, but it still retained TB and was needlessly complicated to calculate/apply.