Now, I want to mention that I am fairly new to these games, having only started to really get into 40k again recently, and only having known just a bit of lore a couple years ago thanks to some friends. Even though I am new, I would like to consider myself a pretty quick study, which is where this question came from. I noticed that characters from Rogue Trader start out at a higher rank than a character from Dark Heresy. Essentially my question is this; is this going to be the same with Deathwatch?

I could see starting a character off as a scout Marine if the game wasn't settled around the Deathwatch, which are veteran units seconded from other Space Marine Chapters. First off I'd like to make it perfectly clear, from what I've read I find it quite possible that you can don Scout armor for a specific mission. However, what I'm speaking about now is skills and talents, not which specialty a Space Marine chooses. To continue with my thought process, I would think just a simple battle-brother would be higher rank than a starting Dark Heresy character; maybe going so far as to say a new Aspirant would be so as well, due to their training as children from what I've read. With that thought, I'm sure an Aspirant probably wouldn't be the rank a Rogue Trader starts at. Though a newly Power Armored Marine might be just under or at the rank of a Rogue Trader, it just depends on how powerful FFG decides to make them out to be.

So, depending on what FFG's gonna do, a Deathwatch Marine might be around Rogue Trader level, or maybe more powerful. However, as I say this I would like to mention I don't particularly like the Rogue Trader method of leveling. I can understand that it's easier to create a character that way, but I prefer being able to select every single talent or skill that my character would have at that level. With that, I ended up making a character from DH to be inside of an RT game. The customization of a DH character is in my eyes much better than choosing "packages" or as they're called in RT "Origin paths".

In conclusion, I am expressing my dislike of the Rogue Trader character creation, and hope that the level of customization that Ross Watson has mentioned will include that of specialized talents and skills. Though the sneak peak at the Devistator Marine makes me wonder, there could be a lot left out, so I wanted to pose the question to get a solid answer.

The starting power level of Death Watch will definitely be beyond that of Rogue Trader.

As said, you start more powerful than in RT.

Though I am somewhat taken back by your statement, as IMHO the Origin Path in Rogue Trader is one of my favorite character creation methods of all the games I've played!

Cifer said:

Stats-wise, yes. But, fluff-wise, a Rogue Trader and his crew wield considerably more power due to their position.

Besides, who came with the term of 'fluff' ? It used to be called 'background' and fluff sounds derogatory.

Kyorou said:

I'm not to sure about that. The Deathwatch work directly for the Order Xenos of the Inquisition. They are the militant arm of that Ordos... so once again, this could turn into a discussion about "Who is more powerful? Rogue Trader or Inquisitor?"

Space Marines do not "require" any power when they have their own personal status in the Imperium, completely independent of any authority other than the Inquisition (when they play nice together) and the Emperor.

I may be mis-quoting, but I thought the starting levels for all three games were going to be different.

DW Rank 1 = RT Rank 4 = DH Ascension Rank 1

I think the initial Death Watch articles on FFG talked about starting marines being on par with Ascension level characters.

Kagra said:

Yah, I would have liked to have seent hem start with a Space Marine game with a logical career path to Deathwatch.

I think the initial Death Watch articles on FFG talked about starting marines being on par with Ascension level characters.

Ascension has a little more than one level. I'd imagine they might stick with their 5000 XP difference.

@Kyorou

Besides, who came with the term of 'fluff' ? It used to be called 'background' and fluff sounds derogatory.

It isn't meant to be. Fluff is simply the opposite of Crunch, the hard mechanics of a game.

I found the article that addresses the DW power level in an interview with Ross Watson and Sam Stewart on the Dark Reign website attached below if anyone wants to read it.

The power level for starting Space Marines will be roughly the same as Ascension level starting characters. In fact, they stated Ascension and Death Watch are basically the same tier.

http://www.darkreign40k.com/drjoomla/index.php/news/1-latest-news/1125-ross-watson-and-sam-stewarts-dark-reign-interview-log

Cifer said:

So you have the solid "crunch", and which is then padded out by "fluff"... sounds derogatory to me. I've loathed those terms for a long time, and have heard on more than a few occasions that they're actually banned in GW's design studio for much that reason - it conveys (even unintentionally) a biased emphasis, preferring rules over background material by viewing the former as more solid and significant, and the latter as inconsequential and largely there to justify a page count.

On the other hand, I view GW's attempts at background to be little more than 'fluff.' Talk about page count if you must, but I'll ask about substance . When the GW and FFG materials begin to produce substance, I will stop using the term 'fluff.' The fact that I put in in apostrophes is kind of indicative, but as of yet neither company has risen to the challenge.

Derogatory? Than rise to the challenge and stop *****-footing around.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

As for the power level, the XP chart of the Devastators seems to give good indication. And as for fluff, I simply find the term irritating.

Alex

ak-73 said:

I only say fluff because it's an old table top term, and old habits die hard.

Thank you LeBlanc13 for that information, as I hadn't read that particular interview before, so that definitely answered my question. Also, Kenshin138 I would like to mention that while I do see it as an interesting method of character generation, as it can go a lot quicker, I just don't prefer it. I much prefer the customization of DH, because you can still add all of those aspects of background like what planet their from, or a story background like the Disciple of Thule for Tech Priests. Going from DH to RT, I see a lot of wasted xp, and it just doesn't sit well with me for some reason. That's a lot of skills and talents that I could have instead of the ones that the Origin Paths pick out for me, which to me doesn't seem to add up to the missing 4500xp.

Kage2020 said:

Define substance.

Fundamentally, everyone has a different idea about what's important, significant and valid. I recall a guy on the old Black Industries forums who would have far preferred precise details on the livestock trade of Averland than material that provided description of the culture of the region out of an Empire sourcebook for WFRP... in this instance he deemed tables of numbers to be significant and important, and less strictly-defined descriptive text to be "fluff" (a term he used, as far as I could tell, to denote background he didn't consider worthwhile).

N0-1_H3r3 said:

I don't believe that is the original intent of the term - the term came (I believe) about to discribe additional information - that helps set the mood, but isn't part of the rules needed to play the game. Historical information doesn't impact the rules of a miniature game, but it may contribute to how you play the game.

Mechanically speaking, an Eldar is simply a Human with x2 Unnat Agility. Fluffwise we know they are a lot more alien than that. I hope when FFG does do the rules for Eldar PC, they will do the fluff justice.

SpawnoChaos said:

Actually they are something separate, although they have close TIES to the Ordo Xenos they are not their Chamber Militant. The Sisters of Battle, for instance, are not actually the Chamber Militant for the Ordo Hereticus either, they are the Chamber Militant for the Ecclesiarchy... which has strong ties to the Ordo Hereticus. They work together a lot but they don't technically have to take orders from the Holy Ordo. There is a mistake in the Witch Hunters codex that makes the claim that the Ordo Hereticus has a Chamber Militant (the Sisters) but previous background material disagrees and later publications have corrected this.

A sub-note, I think Grey Knights might actually be the Chamber Militant for the Ordo Malleus, and DO take orders (or at least listen to the advice of) their closely associated Holy Ordo.

ShatterCake said:

Sadly, you are incorrect there. The Deathwatch are the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Xenos, and has been in all the background material I can find on them, and the Sisters of Battle, following the Convocation of Nephilim (as you can see on page 42 of the Inquisitor's Handbook), became the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Hereticus during the Thorian Reformation (after the Age of Apostasy). You are correct, however, in that they were not the Chapter Militant to start with.

However, the Chapters Militant are not obligated to act on the orders of an Inquisitor. It is their decision as to whether a problem requires their assistance, or is befitting them to take part.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Define 'fluff.'

Seriously, though, it's an idiosyncratic term that is often used in reference to GW materials for their proclivity for everything to be exceptional (no general rule take narrative exception to) and for the origins, reasons, or anything else to be "mired in mystery" or something similar. For some it alludes to the idea of inconsistency between editions and articles, while for others it's a reference to the application of the "Rule of Cool" above anything else. Or, at least, as the fans might see it.

There will always be a bit of personal judgement thrown in there. I guess it comes down to the same level of judgement that has people take offence over the term 'fluff.' One imagines that it's the same kind of problem that arises when someone says that they're "Celtic," and the archaeologists might say, "There is no such thing as a celt.'" It all depends on your investment.

I would personally have a push to produce more and better materials be they called 'fluff',' 'background' or even 'Raymond Luxury Yacht.' The quality of that material will be judged separately.

Kage

@N0-1

So you have the solid "crunch", and which is then padded out by "fluff"... sounds derogatory to me. I've loathed those terms for a long time, and have heard on more than a few occasions that they're actually banned in GW's design studio for much that reason - it conveys (even unintentionally) a biased emphasis, preferring rules over background material by viewing the former as more solid and significant, and the latter as inconsequential and largely there to justify a page count.

While English is not my native language, that sounds a little like actively searching for something to criticise. At least to me, it's just the difference between the rules (which should be clear and concise so as to avoid loopholes and inconsistencies) and the background setting (which should leave holes enough for the GM to fill in with his own imagination). I play a certain local RPG that has developed for by now AFAIK 25 years or something like that so its background is more solid than its rules by now - it's pretty much impossible to find a flagstone in the pavement that hasn't got its own story. Often, that's quite helpful, but sometimes you're feeling a bit constricted there.

Also, while I'm not sure exactly where the terms come from, they're hardly exclusive to the WH fandom.

Cifer said:

I didn't search for this particular dislike, it found me. A person's reasons for liking or disliking something need not be rational...

MILLANDSON said:

Which, unless they have a VERY good reason not to, they will usually accept.

After all, you can't be seen as a Hero of the Imperium by sitting behind a desk and swatting at passing flies. It's not in their character to turn down such requests... especially when there is an enemy of the Imperium to slay.

MILLANDSON is correct though that they do have such a choice. Reasons for turning down such a request could be various; the most common being that they are presently engaging the enemy elsewhere. Even then, they will take up the mission offered after they have completed their current one, saying there is anything left to accomplish by the time they get there. If there is nothing left to save, and the enemy is still present, then vengeance is its own motivator.

SpawnoChaos said:

Aye, though if they think the job is beneath them, or doesn't really require their assistance, there have been instances of them declining to help. Basically, you only really call on the Deathwatch/Grey Knights/Sisters of Battle if you really, really actually need them

MILLANDSON said:

If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... the Deathwatch