darkrose50 said:

Don´t get me wrong, I don´t want to insult you but: Instead of discussing this problem with your group and probably rebalancing the weapons list together, you simply take the "uber weapon" too and use it a way that not only looks plain silly but also is a major buttkick any lore regarding space marines (although, if you don´t play close to the lore, this might be non-issue).

Are you content with that? Is that even fun for you? I mean, your post sure doesn´t look like you where to fond of how the bolter is represented in the rules.

It is a simple fix to just pick up a bolter. Bolters are hands down superior to anything an Assault Marine can bring to bear. Sure a high level Assault Marine can match a low level whatever with a bolter, but till then I can just use a bolter. With a bolter there is no need to move and shoot (thus sacrificing a full attack), gain a rather standard +30 to hit bonus, and a chance to hit 1-4 times. Just slap a chainsword on a bolter and call it a day is quite a quick fix, I think.

I have been contemplating a weapon rebalance for the sake of fiddling. Also for a Fallout game I have been thinking about running. I need to learn more about the rules first.

One option is to change the bonuses bolters get to something along these lines:
Single Shot: +10 WS
Semi-automatic: +0 WS
Fully-automatic: -10 WS

Another option is to use the version of righteous fury where all the damage is rolled and added (as opposed to just adding a d10). This has the potential to make lower damage codes a potential threat to an armor 10, and Toughness 8 marine.

Perhaps the first bullet that hits does full damage, and each additional bullet that hits adds 1d10 damage, all counting against one soak, and thus makes it possible to more readily damage Space Marines. The idea would be to then be able to lower the damage of the bolter.

KommissarK said:

LOL, xenos? Capturing them? No way.

Alex

I regret getting involved in this thread. My response was provoked because the OP is posting in the House Rules section, with what he views as an imbalance and requesting feedback.

A fair number of replies state that SMs are already powerful enough, or giving opinions on why he's wrong. Including such logically inconsistent opinions that a non-BA Assault Marine is just as "valid a choice" as a Blood Angel, even if the BA is twice as effective.

No offense to anyone, but if a choice is measurably twice as superior as any other available option, then the other choices cannot logically be considered valid by a rational human being. Also, I cannot agree with the point of view that balance and internal consistency isn't required in an RPG. Even if it is mostly a co-operative based game, rather then competitive, many players will still sit and compare. That's a pretty natural and normal human thing to do. Now if your group consists of people with the attitude and "maturity" to ignore blatant disparities then my hat is off to you, but that doesn't make for a balanced game.

And as Peacekeeper_b pointed out, having to Elite Advance "fixes" shouldn't be a necessity.

The choice of Chapter is important, yes. But it should not trump the choice of the specialization you choose for your character. Otherwise, why would the Deathwatch (an elite force) ever bother requisitioning Assault Marines from outside the Blood Angels, or Tactical Marines outside of the Ultramarines? While your RP group might not care about efficiency and effectiveness, the rest of the world most certainly does.

But let me just again say that my response was prompted by the several opinionated responses, rather then any agreement or disagreement with the OP's statements. And again, I really should know better then to venture an opinion on the net, because that never ends well. From here on out, I'll do my best to avoid doing that again.

KommissarK is one of the few to ground himself to the actual material rather then posting opinions. And I find that's a considerably better approach.

Comparing the value of the talents of the Blood Angel versus the attribute bonuses that a non-BA would likely purchase instead is a good start. In terms of point by point value, they are obviously equal.

All other things taken into consideration, the main advantage of the Blood Angels is that they can obtain rank 5 and rank 3 assault talents from the very first game session, rather then having to wait until the middle to late stage of the campaign. When you consider that its 3 talents, and combine it with Flesh Render, this does make them a bit OP for the role of Assault Marine from Rank 1 and up to Rank 5. After that, the power curve looks pretty similar. In all fairness though, rank 1 to rank 5 is likely to be a big chunk of the game campaign...

But that really doesn't break the Assault Marine specialization. An Assault Marine still gets these talents and still has nearly the same mid and late game combat potential as a Blood Angel AM, so the OP's characterization that Assault Marines are "crap" is a bit of an exaggeration...

It is also worth pointing out that although Blood Angels may make excellent Assault Marines, their chapter list also does offer some real oomph to non-Assault specializations. Granted, its situational (IE melee), but the benefits of Assassin Strike to a range based character should be obvious to anyone. Furious Assault is likewise an excellent talent that lets you increase your melee killing power without a major investment in other talents, such as the Swift/Lightning Attacks or dual wielder talents.

Bladehate said:

Which isn't necessarily the point. The Specialties and the Chapters are somewhat balanced. Good enough that PCs can go out as a team without any one PC getting in trouble. If you don't like a game because a class or race is somewhat less powerful than another, to be frank - that's not my problem.

Bladehate said:

Because they won't get more than a handful and they'll be happy about any they get, that's why. Besides there are other close combat oriented chapters.

Bladehate said:

Worse: how about a BA Librarian with Force Sword? Anyway, if you're looking for perfect balance, I have to say that if I was in charge of 40K Roleplay I wouldn't bother about it. Comparable power levels are fine but to fine tune a system so that it's perfectly balanced isn't worth the effort. Some (certainly not all) gaming groups might require that and if so the respective GM can do the job of callibration.

Please take note that there are gamers who are quite happy if classes and races are not perfectly balanced but actually reflect differences in capabilities. I refer you to the Rifts RPG.

Alex

ak-73 said:

If you bothered to read the last part of my post, you'll see that I actually agree with the point that the Chapters seem somewhat reasonably balanced and that I do not in fact agree with the OP's statement that Space Wolves and Assault Marines are "crap".

The first part of my post was to address the abstract arguments about how its perfectly fine for a Blood Angel Assault Marine to be twice as badass as any other Assault Marine.

On the abstract level, I disagree with many of the opinions here (IE that balance doesn't matter. That because RPGs are co-operative, there fore players should not care about the relative efficiency of their characters. Etc.).

On the specific level, I find myself agreeing with the more constructive points of view that the current system and chapter lists are reasonably balanced.

I also have trouble following the rest of your responses. Either you did not fully read my post, or else I failed to express myself clearly.

I however find it perfectly reasonable that a BA Assault Marine is twice as good as others since the BA's culture is highly Assault Marine oriented, with Veteran Assault Marines and Honour Guard being the pinnacle of their advancement. Meanwhile, SW Blood Claws are mere whelps, the equivalent of most other Chapter's Scouts, who haven't even mastered being a marine yet. In SW culture, if they survive, they grow out of the Assault Marine role. Meanwhile, BA Devastators are more rare and less likely to be as effective as a SW Long Fang or a DA Dev. Different Chapters emphasize different things and it is unreasonable to expect that Assualt Marines from any given Chapter are as good as those from any other. Does that make picking BA as your Chapter if you want to play an Assault Marine the best choice? From a metagame optimization standpoint, yes it does. This is no different than the fact that in D&D 4e you're better off (from a metagame standpoint) taking a Halfling if you want to play a Rogue and a Dragonborn if you want to play a Fighter. Does that mean that you can't play a Dragonborn Rogue? No, but he won't be as effective as a Halfling Rogue. That's just the way it is. Since the different Chapters emphasize different training/tactics, it makes sense that marines from certain Chapters are more suited to a particular role than a marine from another Chapter. An Ultramarine is a better candidate for a Tactical Marine than a BA too. Where's the thread complaining about that? I like the fact that FFG has retained the flavor of each Chapter, including what Specialties they are more suited for. At least a group with both a BA and a SW in the Assault Marine role won't be cookie cutter copies of one another with nothing to distinguish them save for the trinkets they hang from their armour.

First off, a Halfling rogue is not twice as effective as a Dragonborn rogue. Not even at level 1 where racial bonuses have arguably the greatest impact. Does the race help? Yes. But the benefits gained from the class (IE the role you pick) far outweigh the racial benefits. This becomes ever more true as you gain levels and obtain additional gear, or choose different prestige classes (3rd Edition).

The points about lore and fluff are valid points. And fluff material is a huge and vital part of character creation, in my opinion. But from an RPG-design perspective they should not justify making every non-BA Assault Marine into a massively inferior specimen of the specialization.

Let me repeat myself: I believe that when you pick a role, your actual role (IE your specialization) should have a greater impact on your character's performance and efficiency.

If you design Chapters to have a significantly greater impact then your choice of specialization, you might as well remove specs. If you wanted to be generous, you could then add a few talents based on "fluff" specializations.

My point is that smart (or power, depending on how insulting you want to be) gaming and being a purist RP gamer do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Fortunately, someone at FFG shares my view (at least in part), because the current system is at least reasonably balanced. Oh sure, a few minor changes or sweet talking your GM for an Elite Advance might go a long way, but that's mostly up to the various groups to determine. The baseline structure is pretty solid.

Bladehate said:

I have not seen any evidence here that proves that a BA Assault Marine is twice as good as a non-BA assault marine. At best he will have a slight edge in melee combat, but probably at the cost of flexibility - he'll be a one trick pony, while the SW assault marine will be able to contribute in areas other than combat.

macd21 said:

I have to agree here. A BA marine has Frenzy and...?

Assassin strike is a nice gimmick, sure, but it's not amazing.

Furious Assault is somewhat redundant with Swift(all Assaults have free)/Lightning attack, plus it prevents you from using Two weapons.

Flesh Render is nice, but not huge. Not useful with Power Sword/Axe/Fist or Thunderhammer

Berserk Charge - Ok, this is also pretty nice, but +10 to Charge isn't game breaking.

Talented(Pilot[Personal])?

So, Frenzy is the big one, meaning a BA Assault will have +10 WS/Str/T, immune to Pinning/etc, along with hefty penalties to BS/Int. It's a hefty bonus, definitely, but a.) it's very fluff appropriate for BAs and no one else, and b.) for the 800 xp it takes to by Frenzy/Battle Rage, a BT Assault would get Fearless, which is more general. Anyone else can get +5 WS & Str, and another 1-2 skills or most of the way to a good talent like Thunder Charge, Two Weapon, Hammer Blow, various Hatreds, a second +5 to WS/Str, +5 T. Plus that ignores the limitations of Frenzy.

macd21 said:

I get the feeling you are either not reading the posts, or just misquoting me.

For the record:

-I don't feel that BA's are overpowered.

-I don't feel that Assault Marines are crap.

-I am disagreeing with the people stating that its "ok for Blood Angels to be twice as good as any other Chapter when it comes to making an Assault Marine". I happen to think that being true to the fluff and balanced game design are not mutually exclusive.

Bladehate said:

Ok, but is it ok if BAs are a little bit better at being an Assault marine? If so, how much is ok? Is it ok if BAs and BTs make the best assault marines to correspond to the fluff? That's similar to the D&D example

I agree that they aren't twice as good by a long shot. I think I made that clear from my post right above yours. People (not necessarily you) keep pointing at the number of talents BAs get, and that they get talents early. Assassin Strike and Furious Assault just aren't that good to get in a tiff about. Yes, vs a horde, Furious assault gives you +20 WS over the same attacks w/ Swift attack for no downside, but you could instead spend that 500 xp on Two weapon wielder and get three attacks at -10 (and you probably already have +30 or more for attacking the horde).

Assassin strike is nifty, but hardly makes anyone twice as good. I was considering how you could abuse it (say, AB 5-6 + hulking giving you a half move w/ jet pack of 12-14, allowing you to charge a horde, attack, and flip out of counter-charge range to negate the no dodge/parry melee attacks), but it's just a gimmick. It can have some use to move from melee to melee, but you lose the advantage of the charge and/or leave yourself open to return shooting.

The real "problem" with BA assault marines is Frenzy. People seem to want to play the frothing space viking Space wolves, but they just haven't been portrayed that way in the fluff for some time. There's really no other chapter that Frenzy makes sense with (unless you're homebrewing World Eaters or something). Even so, it's just not that good to justify saying BAs are twice as good. Remember, the BA has to give up a full round every time he wants to frenzy, so you have a free turn to 'get a head start' in your kill competition.

Besides, everyone is already fighting for second place behind the Devastator for kill count/damage, barring some uber munchkin Rank 8 Storm Warden/Black templar Assault marines, maybe.

It would seem that their is sufficient evidence that Assault Marines, and Space Wolves have adequate talent selections.

Thank you for your opinions.

As turned out in the "Rapid fire with two weapons" thread, Two-Weapons Wielder (ballistic) is extremely powerful. This as a direct result makes the Assault Marine extremely powerful, since he´s the only one who can get it from the get go. The Tactical Marine is the other one who can go for that but he doesn´t get it until Rank 5.

Basically what you can do with Two-Weapons Wielder (ballistic) is fire any two ranged weapons you can use single handedly (that includes basic weapons) in any firing mode you want, using the Multiple Attacks combat action (full action). You got two bolters? You can fire two full auto bursts at a single target or two seperate targets (provided they´re close enough together) if you want. The only drawback is that you get -10 to hit on your attacks, but since beneficial modifiers for ranged combat are abundant,....who cares.

2 Bolters with fire selector and dupole maglocks are 24 requisition, since 50 (per marine) is considered low end, this should be more than affordable.

And since you´ll get both Two-Weapon Wielder variants anyways you aren´t even shoehorning yourself into anything, it´s pure win.

Not what you wanted when you chose the Assault Marine as your character? Well, you tell me. I hate how effective it is. But that´s what´s possible RAW. The Assault Marine is one of two specialties who can do it and the only one who can do it right from the beginning. Just how the rules are promoting this kind of playstyle (Assault Marine as a ranged combatant) is so EPIC FAIL. But anyhow here ya go.

Now I´m eager to see all the Ultramarine Assault Marines (for +5 BS, +5 WS). BA´s can go home^^.

If you wanted to power-game, then I would pick up both two weapon wielder talents. Then I would requisition two (2) bolters with chainsword attachments for twenty-eight (28) requisition.

I (and others) pointed this out in my melee verses ranged thread. http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=179&efcid=3&efidt=389657

The game mechanics do not seem to match the Assault Marine's equipment load-out. No one in there right mind would hand out chainsword in stay of a bolter (mayhaps with a chainsword attachment) to a marine. Bolters are just uber beyond uber.

Who would replace . . .

Range (Bolter)
A) can often attack without moving (moving is a half-action, multiple attacks is a full-action)
B) routinely +30 to hit
C) hits 1-4 times per attack

. . . with . . .

Melee
A) must often move and then attack (moving is a half-action, multiple attacks is a full-action)
B) no bonuses to hit
C) hits once per attack

. . . for a +10 bonus to parry?

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

If you started Assult Marines out with . . .
1) a free move (this is in the talents someplace high)
2) sword mastery (re-roll one missed melee attack per turn) to counter the +30 to hit bolters normally get.
3) access to some sort of auto-fire melee attack

. . . then we could call it a solid move (not a bone-head move).

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

I think replacing the +20 bonus for full-auto with a -10 penalty would go a long way to balance melee verses ranged.

Single Shot: +10 WS
Semi-automatic: +0 WS
Fully-automatic: -10 WS

@Darkrose

Not to get into this conversation again, but melee doesn't need to be balanced to ranged (in terms of accuracy/damage). Melee provides a different sort of effect than just "I deal 18 damage 5 pen with 1 hit).

Besides, why would full auto make you less likely to hit. The idea of pumping out more lead is that more lead = higher chance of lead hitting.

On the melee chain attachments, you disregard the balanced quality, but that really is what this is about. They need that to fulfill the above mentioned role of melee being not just damage. They are intended to engage the enemies, and provide them with less options of attack due to the space marine in their face, and allow the rest of the squad to have more time to better fulfill their own roles.

And while I admit that boltgun + chainsword is a very nice kit for them, bolt pistol + chainsword is more fitting due to their early access to both TWW talents.

Also, once again, requisition cost of the total kit. It is just giving them alot more if you make assault marine default kit bolter + fire selector + melee chain attachment + jump pack. This increase by 9 points is about 20% more than they were getting, which enough to be something to make it unfair to the other specializations.

Finally, in my games, I will probably force the melee weapon attachment to be treated as a spear, and require two hands, on the basis of leverage, and previous bayonet rules requiring such. Also, I will probably make the reloading of two basic weapons a bit of a hassle, requiring one weapon to be dropped/redrawn in order to reload them. And in combat, losing 2 full rounds to reloading really stinks. Because remember, you can only do a specific action once per turn. So even with rapid reload, you can't do 2 half action reloads in one turn, it still takes time.

At that point, they might as well take a heavy bolter.

Anyway, back on the Space Wolves discussion, just want to reiterate two thoughts:

1. Just because they look like space vikings does not mean these guys need to be "more" awesome in close combat

2. Not everyone likes using frenzy. And that's about the only big thing BAs actually get. Flesh tearer is nice but is eventually less useful (also, it doesn't really deal "more" damage, just provides a better chance to deal high damage). Acrobatics has some nice uses, but still is about as situational as tracking, furious assault becomes obsolete pretty quick/is also not everyone's taste

Once again, its basically a different set of options for SW.

Assault marines:

BAs - get alot of different combat options

SWs - get some combat options, some scouting/social options

I think it is entirely appropriate and fair.

My big compalint with SW is actually with their crappy squad mode powers. I think some sort of counter charge ability would be far more appropriate than a bonus to grappling/dodge/parry/outnumber. And their defensive is just awful if they are not a tac marine with tac expertise, as it essentially does nothing. At least BTs get something good in specific situations, at least smurfs get something they can always find a use for. SWs can't even use theirs if they don't have tac expertise, or don't have fellow SWs around.

KommissarK said:

Fitting for pack animals though. And I like their defensive stance. Their attack pattern? Not so much.

Alex

KommissarK said:

I would argue that it needs to be MORE balanced. As is stands now no one in there right mind can claim a chainsword is equal to a bolter with a chainsword attachment.
KommissarK said:

A bolter with a chainsword attachment would be a far superior standard loadout.
KommissarK said:

Because full-auto does not increase your chance to hit. Else the US army would gleefully hand out full-auto weapons to every soldier. Heck if shooting an extra bazillion rounds would hit one enemy, they would do it.
Seriously, full-auto does not increase accuracy. This is why modern weapons shoot short bursts of three (3) rounds. It has been determined that any more than that decreases efficiency.
KommissarK said:

This would not be the case with a bolter with a chainsword attachment?
KommissarK said:

I would bet a large quantity of ork teeth that Assult Marine with . . .
(A) a bolter with a chain attachment, and a bolt-pistol
. . . would beat a . . .
(B) a chainsword with, and a bolt-pistol
KommissarK said:

Every specialization gets a bolter, but the Assult Marine. Another nine (9) requisition will not topple game balance. Take a look at the Tactical Marine with twenty-five (25) requisition points of ammo. I do not think it would be uncalled for.
As another option the ranged verses melee could be rebalanced. That is not the same thing as equal.
KommissarK said:

Fair enough, but take a gander on how strong Space Marines are. I think a bodybuilder could wield a chainsaw one-handed.
KommissarK said:

With three (3) clips loaded in each, twenty-four (24) bolts per clip, and firing on full-auto would mean eighteen (18) turns firing full-auto while duel-wielding. I would be happy as a clam to go into melee after.

KommissarK said:

My point is that melee and ranged are not balanced, and that balanced does not necessarily mean equal. Bolters are uber, and not using them makes Assault Marines un-uber.
Options:
(1) Give Assault Marines bolters.
(2) Make bolters less powerful.
(3) Make melee more powerful.

darkrose50 said:

Everyone else disagrees, but I really think the Astartes Bolter should be 1d10+6, Pen 5, Tearing. It follows the amount of increase the rest of the weapons get. (Astartes Chainsword vs Hecate Chainsword, etc.)

I am quite certain that it is a fact that ranged beats melee hands down. Anytime one could think of a chainsword beating a bolter can be easily trumped by a bolter with a chainsword attachment.

But the main point is that bolters are uber beyond uber, and not using them is stupid.

I for one, definitely plan to always equip one (1) bolter on my Assault Marine. I likely will not go hog-wild and get two (2). I would think doing so would be taking advantage of the rules, and make my Assault Marine more powerful than any other player character.

Seriously how could one not see this?

Try it out in a few practice fights.

darkrose50 said:

It's not really a question of strength, but of leverage, as KommissarK said. And don't bring up your paddle-triggered, dooku-gripped bolter monstrosity. Using the pistol grip that *all* bolters have by the fluff to swing a melee weapon would be incredibly difficult.

Dual wielding bolters on Full Auto is bad enough, but expecting to dual wield bolters with close combat attachments is silly. I know it's per the RAW, but it goes totally against the fluff. Every marine would do it, if it were so effective. There would be no reason to train firing just one gun.

I am planing on making a list of weapons for a Fallout game. I do not think having a weapon that does twice the damage as other weapons makes choices fun. I bet I would do something similar. Right now I figure I would do this . . .

-(?) Astartes Baseline Craftsmanship-
A new equipment quality: Astartes Baseline Craftsmanship. Ignore (most of) the charts in Deathwatch, and modify equipment in Rogue Trader as follows. Astartes Craftsmanship items may be further updated with Astartes Craftsmanship to Exceptional, and Master as per the Deathwatch handbook.

Melee: Balanced, +5 Damage, +2 Penetration, +10 WS
Ranged: Accurate, +2 Damage, +5 Penetration, Reliable
Armor: 6/8?

deinol said:

And again I have to mention the True Grit trait that noone takes sufficiently into consideration:

In order to kill a Marine with a bolt round to the chest, you need 15 points to come through the soak. If the brother has a Toughness in the 40s that means you need to deal 33 points of damage with Pen 0.

Don't make bolters less powerful.

How does the chainsword compare? It also needs to deal 33 points of damage at pen 0, which means it needs to deal 29 points of damage for a killing blow, which means you need to roll 16 points if your Strength is in the 40s (1D10 + 13 Rending, Tearing).

However Strength can be increase for additional damage at higher ranks. And if you're ready to finish an opponent off, you can trigger feat of strength for additional 4 or 5 damage points making the feat difficult but doable at higher ranks.

If you're really concerned about it, add about +2 to all melee attacks, that should suffice.

Alex

I do not think you guys are giving super-soldiers twice as strong as gold-medal weightlifters enough credit. Twice as strong as the strongest man on earth. That is pretty **** strong. I think they would be able to compensate for leverage. I would hope that the medal used and craftsmanship employed to make there equipment can handle the stress.

It would not be difficult to design a full-auto capable weapon with a chainsaw on it that did not have a pistol-grip. Give it a covered grip with a handle like a shovel, perhaps make the weapon start at the elbow, and encompass the hand.

One does not need two (2) bolters. One (1) would be sufficient.

One would need to look at the reason why bolters are uber. It would seem they are uber to fight Chaos Marines.

Lowering the damage of a bolter would make combats between Space Marines and Chaos Marines take forever.

Reducing damage would not solve this query alone.

I disagree with you Alex. I like the way you are going, but check this out.

(A) Assault Marine swings his chainsword for 2d10k1+13 damage.
(B) Any Marine fires full-auto gaining, likely, +30 to hit, doing 2d10+5 per bolt.

(A) and (B) both roll the same, and have the same WS and BS. (B) hits two (2) [if swift attack hits] to three (3) more times than (A). I would rather do 2d10+5 + 2d10+5 + 2d10+5 + 2d10+5, than 2d10k1+13 + a possible 2d10k1+13. Even with a +2 added on. Think about righteous fury.

. . . and if (A) had to move up to attack, extremely likely, thus giving up the second attack, then (B) still wins hands down.