A friend and I have been working on making all the different settings compatible. I have no idea why they went with different systems for the various settings, but I'm posting it here because Deathwatch is my favorite. Has anyone else attempted this? It's time consuming but works fairly well so far.

Yeah, I did. I'm GM'ing multi-system campaign, at least 1 group of every system, and after nearly 2 years we actually made something that seems to work. I need to finish uploading it here, but you can see most of it already here: https://community.fa...-unified-rules/


But I'd like to point out 3 things:

1. There are some grammatical errors and such - I was uploading in hurry and than I kinda forgot to fix it . If you're interested, I can fix most of them in a few days or so.
2. Aside from unified rules, there are also some fixes and balance changes, that's why it's so long.
3. It's a TON of work and you would rather stick with treating them as different systems... trust me, it took us like 2 years and ~80 sessions to make it actually work.

I'll use a lot of that. Thanks.

Here you go - uploaded, fixed, stuff like that. Enjoy .

I'm playing in a Deathwatch game using rules adapted into DH2. A lot more flexibility in character advancement.

Yeah, there's been a lot of talk about converting DW (and RT) to classless, Aptitude-based system like DH2 or OW. There are some threads on the Internet with proposed rules and other stuff. The big advantage of Aptitude-based system is how easy it is to translate it to other rulebooks - you don't need to make your own Ranks or anything, you just need to decide who gets which Aptitude.

Personally, I don't really like Aptitude system, but I'm a minority (like 80% of my players adore it), so I guess it's just a personal preference. I think ranks give better flexibility, although it may stupid at first. But, that's a topic for another, looong discussion . I'm happy to see someone enjoying Deathwatch, there are way too few of us.

And no mater what you do, everything is better than trying to make one working system with what we have - if I was making another 40k campaign (and I'm not doing it for a long time), I'd either play with New World of Darkness Rules (minus morality and few other thing) or just converted everything to Only War. Or DH2, although I'm too fond of OW pskyer rules to do that, I'm afraid .

Personally, I'd like a system that was somewhere in the middle - a class structure so that archetypes got access to specific ability sets, and got better at them, and then a classless system for expanding beyond those basic ability sets.

Personally, I don't really like Aptitude system, but I'm a minority (like 80% of my players adore it), so I guess it's just a personal preference. I think ranks give better flexibility, although it may stupid at first. But, that's a topic for another, looong discussion .

DW character progression being accused of flexibility is not something I hear often I'm genuinely curious - why do you think so?

The Aptitude system is not something I have a lot of experience with - I never played Only War, and started running DH2E only recently -, but it seems like a fun little thing to play with. DW's character advancement is a relatively straightforward business, you pick up the majority of the contents of your Speciality table and spend the rest of your XP on minor personalisation - if you want to break the mould and have an unusual character build in mind, it requires the GM's assent almost every time you want to get a Skill or Talent as Elite Advances. I have nothing against this, we have fun with it, but doesn't seem particularly flexible for me.

To bring an example, one of my players occasionally takes over the GM mantle about once a year, and in his game I run an Apothecary. I have nothing against chainswords, but I'd prefer to advance the character in a more ranged combat oriented direction to provide support to the crazed berserkers the rest of the group seems to prefer. Now this is all sorts of complicated in this framework, as Talents giving bonuses to that are all but unavailable on the advancement tables I have access to, so it's Elite Advance or nothing. "Apothecary who prefers to shoot" is hardly a revolutionary concept, so a really creative build would be even more complicated, I imagine.

Personally, I don't really like Aptitude system, but I'm a minority (like 80% of my players adore it), so I guess it's just a personal preference. I think ranks give better flexibility, although it may stupid at first. But, that's a topic for another, looong discussion .

DW character progression being accused of flexibility is not something I hear often I'm genuinely curious - why do you think so?

The Aptitude system is not something I have a lot of experience with - I never played Only War, and started running DH2E only recently -, but it seems like a fun little thing to play with. DW's character advancement is a relatively straightforward business, you pick up the majority of the contents of your Speciality table and spend the rest of your XP on minor personalisation - if you want to break the mould and have an unusual character build in mind, it requires the GM's assent almost every time you want to get a Skill or Talent as Elite Advances. I have nothing against this, we have fun with it, but doesn't seem particularly flexible for me.

To bring an example, one of my players occasionally takes over the GM mantle about once a year, and in his game I run an Apothecary. I have nothing against chainswords, but I'd prefer to advance the character in a more ranged combat oriented direction to provide support to the crazed berserkers the rest of the group seems to prefer. Now this is all sorts of complicated in this framework, as Talents giving bonuses to that are all but unavailable on the advancement tables I have access to, so it's Elite Advance or nothing. "Apothecary who prefers to shoot" is hardly a revolutionary concept, so a really creative build would be even more complicated, I imagine.

To be honest, I was talking more about DH and RT than DW. DW is definitely not as flexible, but still, I do not think that Aptitude system fixes it. Let me explain.

Let's say you have 3 characters who want do to things completely differently than than class allows;

- DH Psyker who wants to fight in CC;

- RT Rogue Trader, who's very good with machines and wants a lot of augmentation and some Tech-Use;

- DW Tactical, who wants to be better in CC;

Let's compare how they look in Ranks system versus Aptitude system:

Rank System.

- DH Psyker takes Calix Templar. It's done in 1 move. If GM allows takind DH/RT classes in RT/DH, he can take some sweet CC classes from RT, too.

- RT Rogue Tradertakes Aumgentionist class. Bam, it's done.

- DW Tactical takes Chaplain, or maybe Champion. Bam, it's done.

Neither of these characters is punished too severely for changing class; they will have to pay more for their original Rank, but they have access to 2 Ranks at once, and they are completely different; it seems fair. I would actually rule that things from original Rank cost 2x more, not 50xp more, but still, it' fair.

Let's see how Aptitude system looks here:

- DH Psyker has to pay around ~2-3 times more for close-combat related Talents and for Characteristics. If half of his talents are CC-based (and in case of CC--heavy Psyker, it's propably close to 3/4), he needs 50% more XP to make some progress with his CC skills.

Which means that stereotypical Psyker, who spend 12000 XP, actually gets what he paid for. And he's teammate, who also got 12000 XP, actually gets around 8000 to spend - he loses 4000 XP because of more expensive Talents and Characteristics. That's a lot; he's basically 1/3 weaker. It's even worse when you have like 4000-5000 XP, because on lower Ranks, every Talent is necessary, and he has to choose between them, knowing that he's friend next to him has no such problems.

- RT Rogue Trader. Yeah, the same as above. It hurts him a lot and means that the "face" of the team has to spent nearly half his Experience not on Fellowship/shooting/Profit Factor thing, but on few tech-related skills.

- DW Tactical. The same, but with Experience costs in DW, he's propalby in even worse situation.

I also have 2 other points. I actually run an OW campaign for some time, and I'm running BC campaign for more than 2 years, and this is what we found;

- In Only War, this is not so much of a problem. Unless you want to have vastly different roles in squad than your Specialization suggest, you're not going to have much trouble. This is definitely a game about specialists.

- However, in Black Crusade, this is much more problematic. If you want to create a Slaaneshi character using only Slaanesh or Undivided Talents and Skills, it's fine. However, if you want to create Lucius-like character, duelist, you're going to feel few annoying things get in your way (like one of my players said - Lightining Attack, 3rd tier Khonre, Opposed, 1200 xp!? What?). The same applies to Nurgle sorcerers.

Also, Khorne characters pay a lot for Dodge (also Opposed), which definitely suits them, but in a system where ranged attacks can be Dodged, but not Parried, this hurts them a lot. It costs more than 1200 xp to get a decent Dodge, and that's without counting the Agility increase.

Another example. My Khorne character, despite being a CC monster and such, is not stupid; he has some Command skills and when combat starts, he is the guy who plans it all. And by planning, I mean actual planning, not "We charge head on and win!". I think that being a General-like type, who plans everything, do not stop him from than charging and killing everything around him with his Whirliwind of Death. So, let's see how that goes. Lore: Tactics of whatever you call it is based on Tzeentch and Inteligence; it's Allied, so you can buy it, not much of a problem, it hurts a little, but it's fine. Then we move to Command and Command-related Talents. And to Fellowship.

And than we realize that Fellowship (and some commanding talents) cost you a leg an and arm, since it's Slaanesh. Opposes. Ouch!

In practice, I feel that Aptitude system forces players to either create archetypical characters, or suffer for any deviation. Which makes two Khornites either nearly identical, or one of them is clearly stronger than another because of XP difference.

While in DH, I have like 3 Assasins in 3 different group. One of them took alternate Assasin class from Deamon Hunter - I think you can see how that went and where he ended up with. Second one took some lore-based Classes (I actually allow characters to take Ranks even when they have different Classes than required, as long as it makes 100% sense), and after some time, when we entered Ascension, he actually switched to Sage, becoming the Team's both knowledge and stealth specialist. Third one is going to buy some Underworld-based classes, and he's currently creating and running a large net of underground informators.

DH also has the advantage of having Ranks splitting in later parts - so even with base Rulebook alone, you may have team of 3 Guardsmans, all totally different.

DW got the short end of the stick here. While there are some CC-based classes (Chaplain, Chapmion), or even Command-based (again Chaplain, Capitain, 1st Company Veteran), there are bascially no ranged-based classes. So while you can make a Wolf Scout, Dark Angel Biker, Blood Angel Tactical with Jump Pack or Black Templar Assault with some Command skills, you have no way of making your Tactical or Apothecary more shooty (with excepcion of 1st Company Veteran, but it's not a typical ranged-based class, he just has some Talents related to that).

So I agree - if you want to make a Shooty Apothecary, you either have to base it on your Chapter Advance Table and Chapter Squad Modes, or you need to have GM give you something, or you need to use Aptitude system. However, be warned - with Aptitudes, your Apothecary is going to effectively have 40% XP less, so he's propably going to be weak both in CC and Ranged combat.

That's my view on Aptitudes. One note - while it may sound like an absolute critique, we are using Aptitude system for more than 2 years on our BC campaign, and it's working. I'll try to get some of my Aptitude players to make a post here, so you can hear their opinions firsthand .

That's my view on Aptitudes. One note - while it may sound like an absolute critique, we are using Aptitude system for more than 2 years on our BC campaign, and it's working. I'll try to get some of my Aptitude players to make a post here, so you can hear their opinions firsthand .

Do so - I'm interested in their experiences, and this place can always use some fresh blood (one way or another)

As for Aptitudes, you raise interesting points. According to my limited experience, in DH2E a CC-focussed psyker is easily doable. Admittedly you need to make sacrifices somewhere along the line, but with proper planning it's easily done. The forte of the Aptitude system (in comparison with DW) is that you can start steering character development in the desired direction right from the start - you're not forced to spend 4 or 5 Ranks' worth of XP before you're allowed to take the Advanced Specialisations, like in DW.

In DW, the problem partly stems from the nature of the prestige classes - they're heavily established in decades of Space Marine lore, so they can't conform to broader archetypes so easily (that said, I'd split the First Company Veteran Specialisation to a CC-oriented Vanguard and a RC-oriented Sternguard class, and boom, problem solved). Another part is that the Chapter advancement tables offer too narrow a selection to become a game-changer (and they are sorely lacking in shooty Talents - believe me, I checked), and the occasional +5 here or there notwithstanding, you're still locked in the characteristic advancement table of your erstwhile Specialisation. The Squad Modes are significantly better, but with a limited pool of Cohesion one cannot call them in too often, which limits their usefulness. Luckily, playing a Space Marine means playing an archetypal, larger-than-life character by default, so it's not really distracting, but I'd certainly welcome a wee bit more flexibility.

I'm not inclined to switch over to a homebrew Aptitude system in DW, not even for the sake of my pet Apothecary, though I love the idea greatly - at the moment, DH2E is still a shiny new toy for me, so I'm just observing the difference between the two systems with the wide-eyed curiosity of my inner 10-year-old. When I become as jaded in DH2E as I am in DW, my opinion will probably be much more well-informed

I generally prefer aptitudes, because they are much less restrictive for branching out of the scheme for a purchase or two.

Although alternative ranks are generally better than aptitudes for characters that distort heavily from the scheme (because as was already mentioned, buying a lot of stuff without appropriate aptitudes is way too expensive), they have two major issues. First, there are some character archetypes that have no alternative ranks (like the aforementioned BS-oriented DW rank), so you are restricted in your choice or you have to house rule it in, which can be problematic due to the sheer amount of talents and skills in the game as well as simple player bias (it's really hard to create something balanced when you are making something for yourself). Second, alternative ranks have the issue of having to fit things usually spread out over several ranks in a single one. That leads to many ranks that are simply too weak (because they left out too much of the really good stuff) or too strong (because you get all you need in just one rank).

What I would really like to see is an easy to use way to build your own ranks. For example, if I want to play a fragile priest-duelist in RT (rather than the tanky and flamer-based build enforced by the Missionary class) I could just choose some packages, determine the primary and secondary atributes, and roll with that.

P.S. I don't think I can be considered fresh blood, but I am Alank2's player