Peacekeeper_b said:

I understand your point about protagonists and Black Library novels, but we must remember that the writer wasn't first assigned a task "now the protagonist has to fight a daemon prince" after which he had to put on extra helping of awesomeness for the protaginist to survive into second act. No, the level in which the conflict of the novel is fought was decided by the writer. He didn't have to write super-powered enemies that require godlike protagonists. He chose to write them. And, I believe, that choice had nothing to do with how good the book will be in the end... My favorite BL stories are Shira Calpurnia stories (recently republished in Enforcer). They are pretty **** good stuff for BL writing and the average enemies are still only humans.

AluminiumWolf said:

Final sanction is, as other have said, singlehandedly wiping out a genestealer infestation and combatting waves of dominated PDF. And as for important, the preview adventure didn't go long into details of how Lordsholm factored into the greater picutre, but as a GM I have no problem making that up on my own- it was an agri world, probably supplying a hive world or arm of the crusader forces. So now what do those folks eat? A whole planet worth of farms is now lost, that's a big deal- and as for it being a pseudo failure, well, that happens in war and you have to make lemonades out of lemons as players and as he overall supporting cast.

As for Extraction, again, on the surface, your goal is to rescue a tech priest. But the tech priest is in the posession of biological data on the hive fleet, which in my limited Tyrannid knowledge is amazingly valueable. The whole reason you go to get this tech priest isn't because he's a tech priest, it's because he has data that could potentially turn the tide of several battles if not the war. How is that unimportant?

I think some of the perception of importance or unimportance of a given task has to be taken in light of the overall picture the GM is trying to paint, and it's his/her responsibility to communicate that to the players. If your setting is one where you just stomp everything knock yourself out, just half the stats of all the enemies and you'll get that without much trouble- I don't however think that was the theme that the writers are going for.

Well, I think there needs to be a stronger sense that these are missions that only a Deathwatch kill team can complete. That shipping in three to five dudes over interstellar distances in a mile long frigate is the only way to do the job.

(Cosmetic changes would help - every briefing containing a line like 'it is too hot down there for anyone but you!' or 'we have already sent in three teams of acolytes and the third battalion Sector Governors Own Rifle Brigade and haven't heard anything from them since!' for example.)

AluminiumWolf said:

Or... not.

Sure, instead of sending a squad of Deathwatch Marines the Imperium could have sent a few regiments of IG. It probably would have taken about a month for them to board their transports (instead of just the half hour it takes the Marines to board). So, odds are the planet will have already fallen by the time they arrive. But let's assume that didn't happen... Now, as it happens, they would then all have died upon reaching orbit 'cause their ship would have been destroyed by the 'nids... but lets assume that didn't happen. They proceed to take the spaceport in order to establish a proper landing zone. Assuming they manage that, they begin moving troops down to the surface and try to retake the city. Unlike marines they can't just cut their way through enemy combatants with ease, they have to fight block-to-block. Unlike the marines their progress is predictable and can be easily countered by the enemy - resulting in a long grind of urban combat.

Basically yes, they could have summoned the guard instead of the marines. Odds are it would have gone horribly wrong. Even if it didn't and the guard manage to somehow defeat the 'stealers and save the day it would still take multiple regiments for them to do so. Which would mean that a squad of Deathwatch are 'only' equal to a few regiments of guard.

But I know I'm not going to change your mind. I think you are just going to have to accept that what you feel would be appropriate rules and scenarios for Space Marines is not shared by the vast majority of the fanbase.

AluminiumWolf said:

The key thing to remember is that the Astartes represent a unique concentration of force within the Imperium. With the possible exception of some forms of Skitarii, nobody can pack as much lethality into as few warriors as can be done when creating a Space Marine. Consequently, the use of the Adeptus Astartes - of any sort, including the Deathwatch - can be employed to exert greater pressure (a large amount of force in a small area being a greater amount of pressure than the same amount of force in a larger area) upon an enemy force and thus accomplish things which are difficult for the Imperial Guard to achieve.

On the grand scale, it isn't a matter of "the Astartes are harder, they do things that nobody else can do", it's a matter of using the appropriate tools for the appropriate task. Yes, some of the missions could have been achieved by the Imperial Guard, in theory... but the Astartes do those missions more effectively, faster and with less waste of Imperial resources, just as there are some missions that, while important, the Astartes are ill-suited towards, given their lack of numbers and heavy equipment. Sometimes you need a spear, sometimes you need a hammer. The Astartes are the former, used to plunge deep into the heart of the enemy and inflict great harm in a single thrust... the Guard are the latter, to smash aside opposition with blow after blow.

Also consider that the line "we already sent in a dozen regiments" is often incongruous given that the Astartes (thanks to swift ships and skilled crews) often reach the destination before other forces, and can much more easily deploy quickly (Drop pods, thunderhawks and similar swift methods of transport allow immediate deployment into battle from orbit, compared to the regimental bulk landers that may take hours or even days to fully unload and prepare their cargo for battle).

It doesn't have to be that only a Deathwatch Killteam can perform the mission; it could simply be that a Killteam is better suited to completing the mission quickly and with minimal collateral damage (some of these worlds are Imperial-held... the less damage to the infrastructure, the quicker they can be back up and running in service to the Imperium) than anyone else. It may instead be that the Deathwatch have been sent in independently of anyone else, and are performing an objective significant only to the Deathwatch.

Sometimes you're the last, best, hope. Sometimes you're the tip of the spear. Sometimes you have your own targets quite separate from those of everyone else.

AluminiumWolf said:

I can totally see why someone would want this type of flavor for their game- if that is the case, simply add stuff like that to your own adventures to give more of an 'epic feel.'

The one thing I'd encourage you to keep in mind, if you're the one in your group making the adventures, don't make them too über or you actually risk breaking the setting in a different way; the far flung future is dark and full of war, but if a group of 5 Space Marines can save an entire sector unaided on a regular basis (and those 5 come from a chapter of hundreds), you'd start to wonder why humanity is still afraid of the dark.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

This is pretty much the feel I get from reading Deathwatch in a nutshell. You're a very expensive, very precise, very potent tool of the Empire...but you're still just one tool of many.

Back to the question of the "Astartes" bolt guns...

I personally think that this is totally out of whack. I recently transferred from Ascension to Deathwatch, and it is ridiculous how much better the guns got for the PC's. I will, below, illustrate what happened and possibly provide a counter to some of the arguments I've read in this thread agreeing with the current incarnation of Bolt Weapons.

I played a Magos in Ascension. A Magos Militant, one of the Council of the Lathes who was given the most ancient, revered, and powerful equipment to hunt enemy Tech-Hereteks and put them down. I was given anything I required (given time), including master-crafted bolt weapons with suspensors, hypervelocity rounds, and sights.

Now, I am a Marine. I'm a supersoldier, yes, but I am not a respected member of the only organization in the Imperium that knows how to make boltguns, and I am most certainly not capable of manufacturing my own like a Magos. But, mine is twice as powerful because I'm huge...

...but wait! The Magos has Exemplar of the Machine! He's huge! He's made of metal, wears powered combat armor blessed by the Avatars of the Omnissiah...

...and still is too small to use and carry an Astartes boltgun? He could've BUILT one for the Machine's sake.

That's what gets me, ultimately. Even the people in the fluff who are as badass as Marines, and in some cases more badass even than Grey Knights (ref. Dark Adeptus ; Archmagos Saphentis) and who manufacture the weapons for said Marines, cannot use them. Why can't they use them? Because some jerkoff in the warehouse slapped "Astartes" on the side of the shipping box?

Magos Militant Arcturus said:

Because FFG has made steadily worse decisions on game mechanics and statistics since taking over the line. Honestly, I love the setting, I love lots of the background informations (Calixis, Koronus, Jerricho) and I like some of the plot arcs (Haarlock, Tyrant Star, Lure of Expanse) but the actual material they have produced has been of less quality (except Radicals Handbook) since the release of Creatures Anathema.

Someone at FFG is a huge fanboy of Space Marines, and they are the power to decide how they look in the system/game as it is. And many people are happy with that. Personally, I think Patriot did a better job.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Best not forget that FFG considers DH, RT and DW separate games. They have not made a substantial effort to make these 3 games as coherent as possible. Instead they have made some effort to make them somewhat possible and for a coherent gaming experience, quite frankly a GM will have to tweak a lot.

I think it's clear from the DW rulebook that the main focus has been to be make the game work as a stand-alone. Even in that regard it has been a rush job/under severe page constraints obviously.

As for the Magos, give him a conversion beamer.

Alex

If the chance of RF is one of the problems with a "2d10 plus Tearing" weapon, would it make more sense to instead do 1d10+10 damage for example?

That way the minimum, average and maximum damage is still higher than a "civilian" weapon, but the chance of RF is slightly diminished.

Also, with the worry of how to wound an Astartes with the weapon, this would go a little way toward resolving that issue. 1d10+10 Pen 6 vs Armour 10 & TB 8 would still have a decent chance of wounding a Space Marine. Hell, maybe even make it 1d10+12, or 1d10+10 Tearing?

Then the multiple dice could be reserved for the Plasma and Melta weapons increasing the chance of RF and thus increasing the damage potential.

Any ideas?

I have to admit I'm still perfectly happy to just swap the Astartes Bolter damage dice with the Tau Pulse Rifle damage, allowing the Astartes to do 2d10+2 Tearing and the Tau to do 2d10+5 non-tearing.

It might also make sense of Penetration could monkey around with Unnatural Toughness... Unless it now can and I'm just missing that bit in Deathwatch (which would be my fault, not the games).

Kage

Kage2020 said:

Not that I have seen. But there are special qualities and shells that I believe do monkey around with Unnatural Toughness.

Im leaning toward making Toughness Bonus against damage treated as primitive armour, since, in a way, it is (see lether and hide armour entries). This would have a big impact on the game, but mainly at higher TB then lower. A TB 3 fella only loses 1 point of soak, but a TB 8 dude loses 4.

Peacekeeper_b said:

True, but then think about the poor hive tyrant from the other thread who doesn't stand a chance as it is...

Peacekeeper_b said:

The draw back to doing this is that Toughness becomes a lesser stat and Agility becomes the defining stat as that dictates your dodge to avoid taking any damage at all.

Wouldn't the TB 3 round down to 1, thus dropping that by 2 points?

Peacekeeper_b said:

Although it might be somewhat obvious what is meant be "primitive," I cannot recall the specific justification as to why some armour counts as primitive and others do not, so I cannot at this juncture comment on your suggestion. Off the cuff, though, it does appear as a viable alternative.

With that said, though, I would have to remind myself of just what Penetration is meant to model. Just considering the name tends to imply that it models "armour piercing" qualities of the weapon, so having it bypass armour and Toughness Bonus would make a certain amount of sense. With that said, with the absence of the "buff" one might have to readdress the balance, perhaps with extra wounds... or something.

* * *

And since the forum software doesn't really allow multi-quoting.

ItsUncertainWho said >>>

The draw back to doing this is that Toughness becomes a lesser stat and Agility becomes the defining stat as that dictates your dodge to avoid taking any damage at all.

The specifics of the system I must necessarily leave to those that are more familiar with the system and, well, use it. I continue to view the Toughness Bonus "invulnerable armour save" as it couples with Unnatural Toughness to be similar to the Body statistic/mechanic in Shadowrun —with much scepticism and a tendency to lead to problems down the line (e.g. weapon scaling). One imagines, though, that with a little imagination that it could be "fixed" without everyone piling the points in Agility, such as with using Toughness to alter the cost of certain talents/traits.

Kage

Bad Birch said:

Well Im talking of a revised set of rules, I would just up their natural armour, or perhaps give a soak bonus based on size/scale. Or create a new trait, such as Hardened Armour, suffers only 1/2 of PEN reduction.

PlasmaBomb said:

Just on this picture: This bolt pistol looks like it's proportions have been taken fairly directly from the model. 40k models are "heroic 28mm" which means weapons (and hands and heads) are oversized compared to the size of the model. The same bolt pistol is used by Imperial Guard models, and they still don't look silly (bolters certainly look big, but not unwieldable) due to them being "heroically" proportioned. If you take a minute to look at them the pistols are about the size of their torso (not much off this size). The same applies to laspistols, so unless they are also meant to be frikkin massive I am not convinced this amounts to a useful argument about why Space Marine bolt weapons do massive amounts more damage.

ItsUncertainWho said:

ItsUncertainWho said:

Nope. You always round up, like when you roll the D10 for 1D5 damage.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Black Carapace.

Alex

ak-73 said:

Black Dynamite.

What?

ak-73 said >>>

Black Carapace

Is just armour, not a mystical field of awesomeness like the Eldar have to wear Rune Armour to get. Well, other than their own TB, of course.

Also, don't forget their "interlocking rib cage of awesomeness."

Kage

Peacekeeper_b said:

I'll try to explain to you this way: would Dermal Plating (as known from games like Shadowrun) be considered as primitive armour?

Got it?

Alex

No, but then again I wouldn't want to judge the defensive properties of materials based upon some hazy yard stick of "primitive." No matter how briefly it might be viable, a piece of stainless steel armour implanted beneath the skin doesn't take on some mystical qualities and double its effective protection rating, just as using bioplastic to make a cuirass doesn't inherently make it primitive.

One has to wonder whether the defensive properties of brick walls, solid oak doors etc. take into account that they are primitive?

Again, though, remember that caveat that I do not remember the justification of why something is classified as "primitive," nor do I have the books to hand. Thus it just seems wonky to me at the moment, but YMMV.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

Well, I personally am coming to find 2d10 for all bolters an appealing idea. Of course this would probably mean most weapons would need to be examined and changed....

I don't think there was ever any explained justification for it, just they wanted a system which would allow more advanced weapons to penetrate older armour without inflating more high tech armour's rating into the stratosphere.

borithan said:

On another forum someone has suggested that taking a gander at weapon damages in general might be a good thing to do in general:

"I found today the DW Astartes weapon damages are ... a bit all over the place. For example; a human scale chainsword in DH is almost identical in stats to a DW astartes grade chainsword (the astartes model is an extra 1 pt of pen and damage iirc). How's that? Astartes chainswords must not only be considerably larger than human grade ones, probably better made, and designed for anti-power armour work amongst other things?

On the other hand Astartes pattern boltguns are VERY deadly compared to human grade ones."

Food for thought, one might imagine. Or at least so that one can formulate a pithy rejoinder.

borithan said >>>

I don't think there was ever any explained justification for it, just they wanted a system which would allow more advanced weapons to penetrate older armour without inflating more high tech armour's rating into the stratosphere.

As long as you balance that with increasing weapon damage, I don't inherently see a problem with that. As it stands weapon damage seems to have been "balanced" to be broadly survivable so that the "game can go on!"

Kage