I am new to Dark Heresy but I have been reading the book and, having been a role player for over 25 years, it is one of the best RPGs I have ever come across!!!

I was just wondering if in other products there are Chaos Space Marines statted out or Orks or Eldar? I would love to put my PC's (sometime after the game starts) up against them.

Thanks

Todd

So far there have been no Chaos Space Marines stats in any Dark Heresy or Rogue Trader products. The closest thing we've got for Traitor Legions is a sidebar giving them a brief intro in the Rogue Trader Handbook. As for Orks and Eldar, you can find some sample Ork boyz, nobz and grots and some orky-tech in Creatures Anathema. The same goes for Eldar as well, there are some dire avenger and pathfinder examples in the Creatures Anathema source book, as well as some examples of Eldar weapons tech.

In addition, in the Purge the Unclean adventure book, you can find some Dark Eldar Corsair stats as well as some dark eldar weapons tech. The same book also has a Space Marine NPC statted out (very rudimentary in my view, don't really represent them according to my standards) as well.

I almost forgot to mention that in the Rogue Trader main book, you can also find some ork freeboters, some eldar pirates and some kroot mercenaries and examples of their technology as well. Hope that was helpful.

Disciples of the Dark Gods (DDG) and Creatures Anathema (CA) have Orks and Eldar and other beasties. The Rogue Trader (RT) core book has more Orks, Eldar, and Kroot. Purge the Unclean (PtU) has Dark Eldar and the only officially stated Space Marine, who is a member of Deathwatch. Chaos marines could easily be built from the stats in PtU or there are some well made fan supplements that might still be available at darkreign40.com.

Most acolyte groups won't survive an encounter with a Space Marine(SM), Chaos(CSM) or not, unless they are very well prepared and have had a thorough planning and strategy session before the encounter. SM and CSM should probably be used as plot devices that show up and scare the crap out of your acolytes and fade into the background as all of their minions attack.

ItsUncertainWho said:

It all depends on what they are equipped with when it finally comes down to trading shots. A CSM will likely kill one or more acolytes, but if the Acolyteshave high-end weapons like power fists, meltaguns, maximal-set plasma weaponry, or even daemon weapons for the hardline radical, then the CSM will very likely die after a few hits. The key is just having high damage and good AP, and those tend to come together on many of the better weapons, along with superior numbers and an acceptance of a few casualties.

HappyDaze said:

Do note that while a CSM might be crazed beyond recognition of his pre-Horus Heresy self, they are still former members of the Adeptus Astartes. Basically the elite of the elite of military infantry forces.

Despite the fact that he would most likely be extremely well armed if he's alone. "Rank and file" CSM's part of a larger army might "just" be equipped with Astartes Bolters and Power Armour, but if it's a lone CSM involved in some obscure mission in an Imperial held Sector like Calixis, then that individual marine would most likely be at least a sergeant or even a captain, or perhaps some sort of CSM sorcerer. Meaning that he would be a stronger and more skilled/ruthless member of even his own corrupt brethren. This means a serious upgrade in equipment (it wouldn't be strange at all if he had a plasma pistol or even one of the infamous Kai Guns, and alo be carrying an astartes powerfist or other power weapon), he might even be wearing a suit of daemon armour rather than a "standard" CSM Power Armour, and other assortments of harmful trinkets and artifacts (like Nurgle blight grenades and other tainted objects). He could also very well be gifted with mutations or even be a psyker in his own might if he were to be a sorcerer.

But the most important thing to consider here is that a sergeant or a captain of the Adeptus Astartes are his skills and battlefield experiences. Most prominent members of the Chaos forces have been around ever since the Horus Heresy and have seen countless battles. Some of them might even have been slain several times before only to be resurrected later by the wicked powers of the warp due to impressing their dark gods .

Suffice to say that we're talking about individuals who intimately knows every single trick of the book when it comes to defeating enemies. Be it siege warfare to guerilla tactics, they will know all of it and would apply every ounce of their experience when they find themselves in combat. If they are a part of a larger battleforce then they might let loose their bloodlust and go charging towards the enemy with little regard for whatever armaments the enemy might be using. But if the CSM is alone and outnumbered and he knows that his enemies are packing heavy weapons quite capable of even ripping a tank apart (like melta weapons, powerfists, plasma cannons and las cannons), he wouldn't do something so stupid as running towards a firing line of acolytes and just hope that his armour and toughness will shrug off the hits of several plasma blasts. In such a scenario you might actually see something so unusual as a Space Marine stalking his victims and make good use of his battlefield experience. Such as using cover and limiting the enemies' line of sight, eliminating light sources and setting the surroundings on fire in order to choke the premises with thick smoke, using supressive fire, killing possible bystanders and leave their corpses in a gruesome state and painting wicked chaos symbols and runes in blood on the walls and the ground as a form of psychological warfare, doing his best to force the acolytes to fight on HIS terms, dividing their numbers and try to pick them off one by one etc. etc.

Simply put, even if the acolytes happen to be extremely well armed, chances are that most of the time they won't even be able to use that weaponry. Most likely the Chaos Space Marine will find ways to divide them and pick them off when they are alone, and when he does that he will most likely suprise them.

Anything less on the GM's part would be outright sacrilegious towards the canon concerning the Chaos Space Marines. After all, they are still the best of the best among human military forces in the 41st millenium, but a corrupt and outright evil version of them. Basically all of them are Rambo on superhuman steroids, decked out in power armour and both evil and cunning in equal measure. They wouldn't be do something so stupid as running towards a bunch of plasma gunners in the open and just pray that they'll be able to shrug off the hits.

In such a scenario you might actually see something so unusual as a Space Marine stalking his victims and make good use of his battlefield experience.

Funnily enough, I wouldn't think of that as 'unusual'. After all, all Space Marines, whether Chaos or pure, are usually seriously outnumbered, far more than the TT would indicate - and by enemies who generally have at least some anti-armour equipment. So they'd need a very mobile style of engagement anyway that either takes out enemy heavy weapons very quickly or evades them outright while going after the mission target before going to ground and conducting Guerilla warfare until the allied advance has caught up with them.

Space Marines make you think of them as lumbering giants, but on a modern battlefield, any force behaving as such with so few numbers is pretty much dead.

Careful. It almost looks like pro-CSM fanboy gush up there...

If we're worried about doing something sacriligious against canon, then be careful making your typical CSMs too tactically brilliant. Only the veterans seem to use the tactics you're describing while the rank-and-file CSM is more of a (very elite) shock trooper. Beyond all of that, the CSMs i've seen in the novels seem to be routinely bested by the protagonists. I'll all likelyhood, this will happen in the roleplaying game too. Making them tough and even smart is all well and good, but these guys are not supposed to be unkillable. Moving the goalposts so the CSM is a high-end sorcerer with all sorts of extras doesn't help. In this game we have stats for a Tyranid Lictor - something that is (IMO) more of a threat than a single CSM, and we can accept that a PC group can potentially put one down, so i don't think it's reaching too far to imagine the PCs hunting and stalking a CSM.

I also hate assumptions that PCs will be reactive/defensive. It's quite possible that they are the ones doing the hunting and stalking since they can have sufficient firepower to deal with the threat and underestimating the tactical capabilities and cunning of a group of PCs is quite common.

HappyDaze said:

But it wouldn't be exciting at all.

Also, the only time I used a Tyranid Lictor in a scenario, I actually gave it fate points in order to survive. The rules for it made it pathetically weak and I just knew on beforehand that it wouldn't stand up to a bunch of armed PC's. But a tyranid lictor is still just thematically an alien monster bug.

A CSM is supposed to be of human intellect but superior in every right, and have infinitely more experience of combat than any pesky little acolyte of the Inquisition. If the PC are hunting a CSM like it was a scared dog the players are going to suffer from some severe hubris and get the completely wrong idea of what Space Marines are.

It's not fanboyism, it's reasonability...

(Im actually a Necron player, not a CSM player when it comes to the table top strategy game)

You can be hunting a CSM and still have full realization that it's very dangerous and not fall into it with hubris. Don't make the mistake of believing that just because the PCs have the upper hand that they have to become overconfident and make stupid mistakes. And while the CSM does have more experience and better training, that only goes so far - troop quality can always be overcome so long as there is a chance of failure - and since even a CSM is able to fail, it can be defeated. If the CSM is somehow plot-protected and unable to fail, then we're back to fanboyism.

Only the veterans seem to use the tactics you're describing while the rank-and-file CSM is more of a (very elite) shock trooper.

Considering that even Rank-and-File troopers are veterans of many battles, I can't see how they wouldn't pick up quite a few tricks.

Cifer said:

That's why smart Acolytes won't face CSMs in a battle or other setting that's favorable to them. If it's a battle, send the Ass'tarts to deal with them. If you're hunting down the most dangerous game somewhere that you can't afford too much collateral damage or escalation (and where the CSM is likewise bound in some manner from full escalation), that's when you send in your Inquisitorial kill-team with the Acolytes at the head.

HappyDaze said:

I think it would be a mistake on the GM's part if he's slavingly adheres to the rules of the table top battle game in order to determine the exact danger any type of character were to present.

Not only is it completely inappropriate because Dark Heresy is NOT a strategy game but a role playing game, but because the importance lies with creating a good and exciting story. And im sorry, in my book, letting normal humans easily ass-**** a Chaos Space Marine who have been around for millenia and have seen and engaged in every flavor of battle just doesn't seem like a very good story.

So to be frank, I don't really give a crap it that makes some people think im stooping to fanboyism. I run and play ROLE PLAYING games, not ROLL playing games, where game mechanics and adherence to a rulesset for an entirely different game is largely irrelevant...

HappyDaze said:

It doesn't really matter how smart they are. I know plenty of scenarios written for a plethora of different RPG's where it is specifically implied that the player characters have to go and do something against their better judgement.

You say that smart Acolyte's won't face CSMs in a battle or other setting that's favorable to them. Well, I say smart CSM's (especially if they're alone and not a part of a larger battleforce) aren't going to conduct their activities in such a manner where a few pesky acolytes might get the drop on them.

Meaning that if the Acolytes will be presented with an opportunity to hunt down this vile member of the traitor legions, they will have to do it on HIS terms, not on theirs.

And if we're gonna compare smarts between the two, In my book, the Space Marine who has lived for thousands of years will ALWAYS be wiser than any Acolyte. He might not be more book learned than them regarding certain topics, but he'll sure as hell be better at applying all the information he's gathered over the years...

I think it would be a mistake on the GM's part if he's slavingly adheres to the rules of the table top battle game in order to determine the exact danger any type of character were to present.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Just because I used the term 'veteran' doesn't mean I'm going all tabletop on you. I'm stating that not every CSM has centuries of experience, and that many of the younger ones really do seem to act like simple brutes.

Not only is it completely inappropriate because Dark Heresy is NOT a strategy game but a role playing game, but because the importance lies with creating a good and exciting story.

There is a strategy element in most RPGs, and some players prefer to play up that aspect.

And im sorry, in my book, letting normal humans easily ass-**** a Chaos Space Marine who have been around for millenia and have seen and engaged in every flavor of battle just doesn't seem like a very good story.

Calm it down fanboy. No one said it would be easy or even an ass-**** as you call it. I also noted that it would take experienced acolytes with exceptional equipment - hardly what we think of as the baseline 'normal humans' of the WH40K setting. All I said was that CSMs are not invincible and that smart characters working to their strengths have a shot at taking them down.

So to be frank, I don't really give a crap it that makes some people think im stooping to fanboyism. I run and play ROLE PLAYING games, not ROLL playing games, where game mechanics and adherence to a rulesset for an entirely different game is largely irrelevant...

You're back to some form of tabletop argument, and I'm not playing that angle.

Varnias Tybalt said:

Of course you can play a GM card and stack the deck against the characters, but you can also allow the characters to come up with plans that work.You assume that it always has to be stacked against the players and that it should never work the other way regardless of what the players do. That's being a crappy GM.

What I noted about not fighting them in battle is that it's stupid to fight CSMs in head-on conflicts with Acolytes (the Imperium hjs better counters for such advesaries), but that with proper ambush and deception they can be defeated. I'd argue that agents of the Inquisition have FAR greater proficiency in such subterfuge than the typical CSM.

And as for CSM being more intelligent... I'll just call that more fanboyism. The typical CSM isn't significantly more intelligent or wise than a typical human. Whatever experience they may have to hone them is balanced by insanity, corruption, and massive hubris. CSMs don't win battles with their brains, they do it with superior skill, equipment, and morale (of various sorts).

HappyDaze said:

No that's being a perfectly reasonable GM. Im not saying im gonna stop the players from making plans, im just saying that the players will have to adapt their plans for the situation presented. If I say that they suspect that the Chaos Marine in question have been spotted down in a couple of labyrinthine sewers, and is most likely making his way to a particular plant where he intends to activate some sort of artifact with a bound daemon or other similar doomsday device, and he knows he's being chased, then whatever plans they want to make will have to be on his terms rather than theirs. Simply because they won't have the time to call for reinforcements, the plant in question have fifty different ways to approach it from the sewers and it would be impossible to guard them all, the Chaos Marine knows they are coming for him and he'll most likely have a few surprises in store for them down in the sewers etc. etc.

That's not "playing the GM card" (whatever the hell that's supposed to be), that's the GM telling the players what the situation look like and dropping a great hint as to which plans will be impossible to execute and also that they pretty much have to go down in the dark sewers and try to hunt the traitor marine down despite the fact that he'll have a significant advantage over them down there because it would be impossible to "catch him in the open" in such an enviroment and he'd most likely know many military tricks that he can either use against them or simply see coming if they try them on him.

That's not being a crappy GM at all, that's stacking the odds against the player characters to create suspense. They have this nifty little game mechanic called Fate Points that is supposed to be able to pull them through even during such extraordinary conditions like these. Their enemies don' have these normally, hence their enemies should be smart, vicious and make sure the odds are in THEIR favor not the PC's.

If me and my players wanted to play a tactical strategy game where everyone has to be "balanced" and where the goal is to "win", I'd play WH40K or Necromunda or something similar. When me and my players play RPG's we want a cool story with dangerous and interesting situations, and that will ALWAYS take priority over "game balance".

After all it is well within my rights as a GM to throw all the rules out the window if I want to, they are there as a tool, not as a big book of laws for me to follow. And if you say that reasoning like this makes a crappy Gm then you have sorely misunderstood what most of the roleplaying hobby is about.

HappyDaze said:

Then clearly you are not familiar with the Alpha Legion who excel greatly when it comes to infiltration and sowing seeds of heresy and rebellion even within Imperial borders.

And I don't see why a "typical" CSM would even be in a place where the Inquisition would actually send acolytes to investigate unless it's somewhere really close to the eye of terror where all of the current Chaos Space Marine Legions are camped out.

If they are to find a real CSM, then he'd most likely be a covert operative of some sort (i.e NOT "typical" in any sense of the word) or being a representative/associate of a bunch of human heretics who works for the ruinous powers or a specific legion.

You'll only find "typical" CSM's on the apocalyptic battlefieds where chaos have invaded, meaning that it wouldn't really be a "standard" setting for a scenario. If they are gonna be in a standard setting and find that they are pitted against a traitor marine, then that marine will most likely be a special one and not just your average grunt. The legions wouldn't send an average grunt alone on a mission of infiltration behind enemy lines, it would be tactically unsound to do so. They'd call for some sort of veteran specialist to do this.

HappyDaze said:

The grunts might be insane (most often in the ranks of Khorne worshippers), but the leaders and veterans ARE in fact significantly more intelligent or wise than humans. Or ar you gonna tell me (with a straight face) that the sorcerers of the Thousand Sons legion aren't really that intelligent or wise in comparison to a human being?

Because if that's what you mean, then I'll have to say that you don't have an accurate view of the setting. I mean seriously, we're talking about supermen who are masters at the dark arts of magic, who have been able to dabble in the warped and insane physics of the warp and still keep themselves level headed and more or less sane. They know and have experienced things first hand that a normal human couldn't possibly comperhend without becoming a gibbering wreck, and a large majotity of them have lived (and even died only to be resurrected) ever since the Horus Heresy, and you don't think that such a long lifespan comes with a great deal of wisdom?

If that's the case, then why don't we simply say that most Eldar are really just a bunch unintelligent buffoons, and aren't in the least bit more wise and intelligent than a typical human. It would be the exact same thing.

You need to read up more on the setting before you go call people fanboys, mate...

I understand the setting perfectly well, I just don't have the same filters on my vision that you do. It's quite possible we just weigh the various sources (tabletop fluff, novels, RPG materials, and computer games) differently.

As for the GM card, what I was referring to was a mistake I see bad GMs make of allowing the opposition to know anything the GM knows. It's a great way to negate player choice and to really kill the fun of a game. The classic, "This enemy is so intelligent they've already thought of every counter to your plans.' is one of the finest examples of this foul mistake, yet it's one you seem to encourage. That's one strike against you.

The next mistake that I consider crappy GMing is what you call "stacking the deck against them" because you really make it sound like you don't set a scene and allow them to choose how to react, you take steps to govern their reactions. That's too limiting, too controlling, and way too crappy of a GMing style for my tastes. Strike two.

After all it is well within my rights as a GM to throw all the rules out the window if I want to, they are there as a tool, not as a big book of laws for me to follow. And if you say that reasoning like this makes a crappy Gm then you have sorely misunderstood what most of the roleplaying hobby is about.

That's only within your rights at your table if your players allow it. GMs don't have any authority not given to them by the players, and that can be taken away in an instant. I've booted a GM for pulling power trips like that, and that's with a full understanding of the roleplaying hobby is all about. In this case, it's about not having to put up with a self-centered despot that can't accept the rules as a common contract for playing the game. If your players put up with such then it's pretty likely that they are being mislead about what the roleplaying hobby is all about, and since you seem to thrive here, you've totally struck out in my eyes.

HappyDaze said:

Wow, that has to be the most sugarcoated way of still maintaining your unfounded views of my supposed fanboyism. But you know what they say mate. A turd covered in sugar is still a turd.

HappyDaze said:

I've never promoted such a thing. Strike negated.

HappyDaze said:

Erm, the game pretty much assumes that from the get go, least there wouldn't be any secenarios to begin with. You know that whole "everyone starts out as acolytes of the Inquisition and they all have a boss that will order them around" thing? It's an inbuilt "limiting" and "controlling" device in the setting.

So by your reasoning, Dark Heresy is a crappy game to begin with, regardless of what the GM does.

As for my individual style, I give them plenty of options. It's just that as in real life, some options just won't be available. If you don't have the stones to put some pressure on your players then your scenarios must be pretty easy to breeeze through. It's the GM's job to put pressure on them, oherwise their characters wouldn't have any real reasons to actually do anything.

HappyDaze said:

Aww, that cute but unfounded accusation might have worked... If i weren't for the fact that we take turns being the GM in my group at regular intervals (even in the middle of specific campaigns I might add). So your argument pretty much backfired there.

We're all very much aware of what our intenions and rights are in the group, and as players who are all regular GM's too, we know that if the GM wants to house rule something or do some specific thing to limit our choices or perhaps change a part of the canon setting then he has got a good reason for doing so.

Oh, and another thing to completely sink your argument: everyone in my group have played RPG's for years, and not just in this group but in several others too. I couldn't "mislead" them what the hobby is all about even if I tried.

Sure, there have been up's and down's in my "career" as a part time Gamemaster (all scenarios can't be exceptional nuggets of gold, no matter how good intentions you have), but overall, pretty much every scenario I've GM'ed with my group (including the pre-written ones where I always feel my hands are tied pretty hard because I have to try and convey the authors vision of the scenario and not be to liberal about it) have been recieved very warmly. And I haven't once been called a power tripping despot.

But hey, that might simply be because my players and fellow part-time GM's aren't a bunch of crybaby whino sissies, too bothered over rules lawyering and game mechanics and who can't focus on the real goal of the game:

to have a good time and experience an engaging story ... What's that sound? Oh! It must be the crowd roaring over the fact that the supposed "judge" who "struck me out" pretty much got his third strike grounded into the dirt.

VT, your hyperaggresive tone in response to many threads - both mine and those of others - leads me to believe that you are really trying to convice yourself of your own worth and that of your gaming. This is why I find you to be an irritant. Your words really have little value to me, and mine likely don't matter to you, so why should we bother with trying to convince one another any further?

However, on one final point:

Erm, the game pretty much assumes that from the get go, least there wouldn't be any secenarios to begin with. You know that whole "everyone starts out as acolytes of the Inquisition and they all have a boss that will order them around" thing? It's an inbuilt "limiting" and "controlling" device in the setting.

So by your reasoning, Dark Heresy is a crappy game to begin with, regardless of what the GM does.

Actually, yes, I do think that DH is a crappy game if played as written. I've almost dropped it completely except as a resource for RT. When Ascension comes out I'll look at playing it again - not because of the power increase (although that is nice) - but beause of a greater degree of player-directed control. The NPC boss might still be there, but that can be worked around easily enough if you try, or it can be eliminated entirely.

To be fair, HappyDaze, you have had your share of "hyperaggressive tone" too, especially when trying to tell people when they are "wrong" or "a bad GM" or whatever. So you really can't play that card at all without an amount of chuckling.

And this is from a guy that often disagrees with VT. I don't agree with him sometimes, but I can respect his opinions as a human being, as well as a veteran of roleplaying, something you don't seem to be able to manage.

Perhaps if you didn't try to tell people how "wrong" they were, and how your styles are better (which this thread shows), you'd not be subject to people calling you out on it.

HappyDaze said:

You persist in trying to declare me "aggressive" and that im "ranting", yet you don't have much to base these claims on at all.

All I've done here is answer in turn, to responses that you make, it is after all, pretty impolite to ignore people unless circumstances are dire. You're the one "picking fights" with me, not the other way around. And you don't have the most diplomatic tone in your responses either (I think most readers can attest to that), which is actually fine by me. Im not much for diplomacy either, but it seems that once I get going and get a little too rough for you, you instantly accuse me of ranting and being overly aggressive, which isn't true at all.

I don't have to convince myself of anything. Im a shameless, smug and confident person with very high thoughts of myself, and there's really nothing that you can say or do to make me doubt myself at all.

There's two things you need to do here: First you've really got to decide if you want a heated and rough discussion or a polite and nice discussion, im game either way and more than capable of meeting you halfway, whichever tone you might prefer. But this constant switching back and fourth by first introducing an extremely abrasive response to something I write, and then think that you can score points by accusing me of ranting just won't do. You're only ridiculing yourself by doing so, and you really need to stop if you have a genuine wish for debate, because there's only so much self-ridicule I can stomach from your end before I start to view you as a caricature of a person and thereby not be able to muster any sense of respect towards you.

The second thing you need to do is to stop overestimate your abilities in trying to provoke me. You're not even a blip on my radar, my friend. And you certainly won't show up on it with your constant baseless accusations about me as a person. It's like you're trying to insist that the sky is green while covering your eyes at the same time when it's clear to me and everyone else that it's blue and we're actually looking at it.

But as amusing as that might be, I'd rather be laughing at stuff with you than laughing at you. So what do you say? How about cooling off a little if you don't want to hold an abrasive debate including snide comments and witticism? As baseless as your accusations may be about me as a person, your constant remarking upon the tone of our debate seems to imply that you don't really like it that much. Im fine either way because I don't take even the most mean-spirited remarks on your end personally. But if you want to change it, then great. Im all for it.

HappyDaze said:

Well now we both know that's not true. If my words didn't carry some value in your eyes, then you wouldn't be pestering me in several different threads with your responses now would you? No, if that was the case, you would have ignored me. And the fact that you openly admit that you find me to be an irritant just confirm my suspicion. If what I say really didn't matter to you, you wouldn't even bother to direct your posts towards me or responding to whatever it is I might be saying at the time. So bless you for admiting that you find me to be an irritant, that's really big of you.

As for convincing eachother, I thought I made it perfectly clear in another thread that im never really out to persuade you of anything. My continued responses to yours are for other readers to read, and not you specifically. That's what messageboards are for after all, so that people can read them. If my goal was to convince YOU, then a private chat would've been more appropriate for that end, and I would most likely have been a lot more concerned regarding your current view of the subject at hand instead of largely be as apathetic towards it as I am.

If you respond to what I write, then I'll respond back for as long as I still have some sort of basic respect for you. But once that's gone (and I'll be honest, it is waning) I'm not gonna pay you any attention at all.

So it's up to you now how it's gonna be. Im not even saying I'll respect you less if you prefer a more heated tone. Im a big boy, heck I grew up a lot faster than most of my peers did, and I can take whatever you might have in store for me and deal i back with equal measure. But im not going to respect you at all with your constant switching back and fourth of tone and then try to accuse me for being "too harsh". Im also going to lose respect for you if you keep insisting on commenting on me as a person when you clearly don't have a case in that matter because you don't really know **** about me or my life.

So man up and act more consistent, and for god's sake DON'T worry what the other readers are going to think of you if you actually take this offer, just because it might seem like you're conceding to me on some level (which you wouldn't really be doing, but I don't know you nor how your mind works), because if that really makes you concerned then I really don't want to have a further discussion with you. If there's one thing I really can't stand it is proud, childish crowdpleasers who are overly sensitive about how other people might percieve them...

HappyDaze said:

Okay, if you say so...

wow...gentlemen please. its important to remember we are all mature folks on this forum and have to try and remember that we're arguing about a fictitious game in a fictitious setting with fictitious characters and our own vision on how it should be dealt with. even the writers of the literature and the 'official' sources of canon are contradictory. i don't think its possible to be able sum up 40K in any kind of neat packge of description. if it was..there'd be alot less debate about small details of the lore.

back to the thread at hand. i don't see an issue with the usage of a CSM in DH as an adversary. we have Acolytes battling all kinds of bad and nasties including warp entities and genestealers and lictors. one of the best choices that comes readily to mine if you are looking to use a CSM is one from the Alpha Legion, they are found on the cultists daggers tip of fomenting trouble, sedition and atrocity. another rather interesting character you can use is the very nasty Fabius Bile.

you would however have to create your own stats for these individuals. you can use a template for Brother Sergeant Agamorr found in Purge the Unclean and modify according to that for whatever nastiness you wish to inflict on your PCs. what i will say is that if you choose to go this route, the CSM is a rather nasty fellow so the players should be of a sufficient rank and equipment to tackle him if it is your wish for a head to head battle.

Let me clarify one point:

Im also going to lose respect for you if you keep insisting on commenting on me as a person when you clearly don't have a case in that matter because you don't really know **** about me or my life.

You've identified yourself as an anarchist that has in the past done violence for less-than-legal ends. This tells me something about you, and none of it is positive in my eyes.

what i will say is that if you choose to go this route, the CSM is a rather nasty fellow so the players should be of a sufficient rank and equipment to tackle him if it is your wish for a head to head battle.

This is pretty much what I suggested in my initial post on this thread before VT claimed that even allowing such with the possibility of a PC victory was a great disservice to the CSM fanboy alliance.

HappyDaze said:

So it's not even valid if it's an actual tactic in-setting? Eldar Farseers and the most powerful servants of Tzeentch can't look into the future to know what their foes are doing?

If done carefully, subtly and in the correct manner, it can be a fine tool for crafting a story. You may not accept it as such, but your opinions are not necessarily shared by those around you.

HappyDaze said:

So the PCs must always be in 'fair' situations? Even, with no bias one way or the other, no allowances for one side or the other being more prepared, better-equipped, more skilled, or anything else that could unbalance the playing field?

Wow... that sounds irredeemably boring.

It is, save for the most automaton-like of GMs, impossible to simply set the scene and sit back and watch it play out. By definition and necessity, the GM should be an active participant, and the NPCs should have as much freedom of choice and action as the player characters. Canny players will take every opportunity to limit the possible responses of their adversaries, and depending on the nature of their adversaries, there is absolutely no reason that NPCs should not similarly take action to inhibit their foes.

HappyDaze said:

GMs only have the authority their players will let them wield, certainly, but the reverse is true - a GM who isn't given the means or opportunity to run the game properly will rarely tolerate it and is well within his rights to up and leave. At which point, the players don't have much of a game left.

Most crucially, your posts seem to lack any hint of something I could never GM without - mutual trust between players and GM. If I don't trust my players, I can't GM properly for them (because I can't guarantee that they won't be self-interested whiners or incessant power-gamers). If my players don't trust me, I can't GM properly for them (because they'll question everything I do rather than sit back and enjoy the game). If there is trust between me and my group, I can get on with the matter of making the game enjoyable for everyone. If I bend, break, or outright ignore the rules (something I do frequently as a GM and as a writer), I do it to keep things fun and interesting, not because I'm a "self-centred despot". All but two of my players have extensive GMing experience and understand precisely what I'm doing and why.

Quite frankly, I'm appalled to see this kind of attitude here - I was under the impression that paranoia about GM's "cheating" was limited mainly to the Wizards of the Coast boards...