the deathwatch adversaries are not really underpowered, most of them are just right but need the appropriate situations to really be scary.

figthing 2 warriors in an open field isn't a problem, 2 warriors and a mag 30 horde of hormagaunts is.

the only enemy I really have any complaints about is the tau commander. he feels much more deserving of the elite classification than the master, as when my players fought him (in disadvantageous terrain to them) they managed to shred him down to -30 in less than a single round (krak missile x 1 RF, bolt pistol burst, double RFed stalker hellfire shot)

I've been toying with some profiles for the other nids in the codex that are not represented in deathwatch.

Genestealer (modified from the landsholm genestealer in final sanction)

WS / BS / St / T / AG / Int / Per / WP / Fel
65 / -/(12)60/ 60 / 60 / 30 / 55 / 40 /

12/24/36/72 move, wounds: 30

skills: awareness, climb, dodge +10, swim +10

traits: multiple arms, unnat str, Imp natural weapons (claws), dark sight, size (hulking), Natural armor (6), tyranid, brood telepathy

weapons: rending claws (2d10+12;pen5;special)

specials: stealth and rending claws

-

Ravener

WS / BS / St / T / AG / Int / Per / WP / Fel
55 / 30 /(12)60/ (10)50 / 60 / 20 / 55 / 50 /

12/24/36/72 move, wounds: 50

skills: awareness, climb+10, dodge +10, swim +20

traits: multiple arms, unnat str, unnat toughness, Imp natural weapons (talons), dark sight, size (enormous), tyranid, fear(3), natural armor (8), instinctive behavior feed

Talents: Fearless, swift attack, lightning attack, rapid reaction

weapons: rending claws (2d10+12;pen5;special)

specials: stealth and biomorhps (range weapon in excg for lightning atk, toxic d10 )

let me know what you guys think!

ak-73 said:

I'd also say the Deathspitters should have full auto fire rate.

RogalDorn said:

That's a mindset that GW has been trying to change for many years. In the TT theirs plenty of solid firepower in the Nid army now, of course it has limitations compared to the melee (it's often not great range or highly accurate, but those can be compensated for) because the melee is one of the best, if not THE best, in the game. For the TT is does open up a lot more tactical options and it should be the same for the RPG because your players are going to go through a hell of a lot of Nids and having as many options as possible is going to keep it fresh.

Most of those billions would be gaunts though, an equal number of Nid warriors would be match for any troop choice at all.

I'm not sure I get how any comparison to the tabletop game is even remotely relevant? Balance issues are really not the same thing in RPGs (in some RPGs, such as WHFRP3ed, un balance is built into the system) while it is of utmost importance in a 2 player tabletop game.

Not that I have played a lot of 40k, but isn't it fairly clear that a particular figure may represent a lot more that one inidividual when it comes to regular troops? So one gaunt figure in the tabletop game could easily be represented by a mag 10 horde in Deathwatch.

gruntl said:

Nope, TT is 1 to 1 ratio. 1 figure is 1 dude.

The overall problem is indeed in scale. In TT (and the fluff) 1 lasgun can kill one IG. In the RPG it can kill a IG in one hit as well. 1D10+3 damage against T3, 8 Wounds. However, once armour is added into the game damage is reduced even further and death is not as common. AP 4 flak armour makes a IG immune to one shot death by a lasgun unless righteous fury is used.

Hit locations come into play, so if your head is not protected, instant death is still open.

Essentially, in order to represent the game from TT to Fluff to RPG more accurate, a weapon needs to be able to harm what i normall kills in one shot in the TT. So a space marine with T8 and AP8 armour needs to be hit by a weapon that does at least 17 points of damage, preferably more. So all Bolt Guns needs to be upgraded to 2D10 damage, at the least. However, if you add in PEN of 5, and the +5 damage and tearing, 1D10+5 Pen 5 Tearing will hurt a marine on a damage roll of 7+.

Bluephoenix said:

TBH that sounds about right. A krak missile is an anti tank weapon so it would stand to reason that a tau shas'o would get obliterated by just that alone hehe. well played : )

gruntl said:

negative. thats what warhammer 40k epic is for. the reg TT is exact representation. for larger battles you use apocalypse.

Peacekeeper_b said:

But 1 shot in game terms is not 1 shot "for real", and 1 turn is in tabletop is not a clearly-defined period of time. Table scale and model scale are wildly disparate and largely inconsistent (no creature should be able to run as fast as a bullet or lasbolt fired from a pistol, yet they apparently can in the wargame)... direct comparisons are awkward at best, and impossible at worst.

A lasgun in the wargame can kill a Space Marine or an Ork outright with a single shot... but we don't know how many shots (in "real life" terms, or in RPG terms) that single dice roll represents or whether that shooting phase represents a period of time covering a few seconds or a few minutes. Closest estimate I've seen is based on the idea that a single Assault in Epic covers a full game of 40k in terms of action, and a turn in the current version of Epic is about 15 minutes of time, approximately (much like BFG, though all these things are variable), so a single turn of 40k (out of 6), is about two and a half minutes long. In 40kRP terms, that's about 30 turns of combat... which means that those 'single shots' in 40k could represent a considerable amount of sustained fire (it takes 10 turns on semi-auto to empty a lasgun charge pack, or 7 turns to empty an Astartes Bolter magazine... even accounting for many turns spent moving around to firing positions and cover, 30 rounds still allows a decent amount of firepower in either case)

N0-1_H3r3 said:

How many Guards can a Marine kill in Deathwatch in that time? :-)

Alex

Realised what I had said had already been said.

the hitting and wounding chart on the TT is similar to the RPG but on different scales. Theres no need to work out how many points of dmg each model has when there are over 100 of them and losing 1 doesnt matter. However if something scores a hit but doesnt wound then hes still hit it just didnt kill him.

But... why are we going in depth and arguing about how the games arent similar? If its because I compared the nids of the TT to the nids of the RPG then I have no idea why its gone this far lol. Simply put... THOSE nids where there 1st. They behave the way they do on the TT because thats how games workshop wanted them to be portrayed. There is nothing wrong with comparing the "watered down" tyranids of the RPG to the TT at all. Its no ones fault but FFG for not portraying them correctly. Not GW and certainly not mine for making a comparison to the original.

rodeoclownjihad said:

Actually, GW tells FFG how they want things to be portrayed, and GW have to agree to anything and everything FFG propose to publish, which sort of blows a hole in your argument because that means that the RPG Nids are how GW wanted them portrayed.

The RPG is a more detailed, accurate basis of the fluff. The tabletop rules are balanced to hell and back in such a way as several races (such as Space Marines) aren't actually portrayed all that accurately in the TT game, and this is because the tabletop game provides only a limited view due to only using d6s. If you want to see proper Space Marines in TT, look up the "Movie Marine" rules on Google, which were also written by GW.

Agreeing with the first post, and probably beyond the scope of the first post:

I am a Rank 1 tank (Techmarine), and gaunts cannot even damage me. So it doesn't matter how many I am fighting, unless the GM invents some creative new rules.

Secondly, my group just tested a fight against a Hive Tyrant and he was easily shot down by four standard marines (no tricks, no house rules) before he had a chance to attack. Seeing as this was annoying to everyone, since we expected something more epic, we gave the Tyrant a round to attack, just to see what would have happened, and he dealt only ten damage to one marine.

I understand if you are interested in a different type of warfare, but I wish there were some sort of solo creature that could put up a fight. Three tough creatures simply cannot give the game experience of one truly awesome creature.

MILLANDSON said:

The fact that they called it 'Movie Marines' kind of implies they weren't taking it seriously. And it's a codex that include's the special rules 'The Script Writer Hates us' (which refers to the opposition) and 'Stunt Doubles'. I hope your not implying that FFG were refering to this when they were making rules cause it's litterally a joke.

Scoates said:

Thanks for that Scoates. As actual gameplay experience that's quite valuable. I looked at the Tyrants stats they looked pretty though but didn't jump as being completely unstoppable so I'll need to re-evaluate that when my players come across one.

Face Eater said:

You and I agree on a lot of things so far. So far it would seem as though the RPG fanatics or the nonTT players have a very large issue with feeling like their enemies may be weak. Of course no one likes to think that the accomplishments they've done in their game so far were easy. They may have looked cool but I'm willing to bet they weren't all that hard... especially if you were fighting nids. Also no one wants to think they purchased a game with flaws or a 2nd rate version of something.

IMHO... FFG, while a great company ( i spent all day yesterday playing Descent ) Should have spent more time on this game. The nids are weak... You shouldn't have to place the enemies in Ideal situations (for the enemies) for them to be any threat to a KT. Whiles you should use them according to their behaviors, nothing is ever perfect on the battle field for either side, but against nids. Even the hive tyrant is garbage. Yes... it SHOULD be comparable. Not in WS or BS or Wounds, But in general concept. A hive tyrant should be scary as ****. he shouldnt get ripped on by a couple of rank 1 marines. Thats ridiculous. Yes the space marines are elite as hell. But thats because the threats out there are far greater than any force of the imperium should be able to handle... Thats what they are there for. That aren't all powerful and superior to everything. Especially not 1 KT...

The TT was there 1st. whether you like it or not. This game was spawned from that and is that same exact universe with a different rules mechanic. Just because its in RPG format doesn't mean the lore changes... The threats out there don't mysteriously get weaker because you're rolling d10's instead of 6's using different stat numbers. If they don't match up looks like a slight flaw in design huh. The argument that DW are superior to other SMs is true. However they don't instantly become stronger, hardier, or more powerful. Their fighting skills are better but using the same weapons. They are wearing the same amor and bleed the same way the rest of the SMs do. They are more experienced thats about it.

Those of you in denial over this comparison, pick this apart as you will anyway to try and discuss some other fruitless point, to make yourself feel better about your purchase or game experiences but when it comes down to it... There is no escape from the truth.

Just because something came first, doesn't mean its always right.

Fx: the Book Rogue Trader isnt 100% accurate lore wise anymore since lore in that book have changed over time.

You can consider the RPG to be a lore update if you want. I know i do for a lot of things. It makes sense to me that the newest GW approved lore is more accurate than the old lore.

rodeoclownjihad said:

What makes you claim that the hive tyrant is garbage?

rodeoclownjihad said:

I don't see them defeating a hive tyrant at rank 1 unless you use that crazy righteous fury rule.

rodeoclownjihad said:

Well, as a side point they do get better equipment. But anyway, I think you're exaggerating. The rpg is largely accurate enough and can be made satisfactorily accurate with a minor amount of tweaking.

Alex

ak-73 said:

Should you really need to tweak a game you paid $60 for to make it "satisfactorily accurate"? But anyway... The argument here is that the tyranids in this game are rather weak. And besides... The original post that I made was not some argument towards which game is "better" or "more accurate" that's a futile argument in the 1st place as it all comes down to the opinions of gamers which are extreme at best.

The original post was basically asking for conformation that I was running them right because they weren't really even worth my time to throw at the KT.(Tyranids that is(of all varieties)) This is not an inexperience in either warhammer40k or running rpgs as I have been for many years with several RPGs including DH, but i sense another debate on the comparison between DH and DW will only ensue to further digress from the original topic if i continue.

So what this means. After years of seeing tyranids on the TT and reading about them in books and then seeing them in the game Dawn of War II. They all add up to about the same animal except in this game. In this game as opposed to all of the other forms of 40k i have experience with, it takes far more tyranids to threaten far fewer marines. Regardless of experience lvl this is sad. Is this to make the SMs look better? If so... I dont think I'd feel very good about slaying hordes of enemies that would only challenge DH characters.

rodeoclownjihad said:

I have played dozens of rpgs for more than 25 years and I have yet to meet one that doesn't require personalization.

rodeoclownjihad said:

I haven't run nids yet in DW, except for the genestealers in Final Sanction which were overpowered. I ended up having to half the net damage to avoid a TPK.

So that's why I was asking. To me the stats look overall good (in theory, actual play might make me reevaluate that).. a few things need tweakage like an additional D10 for the deathspitter.

Other than that where's the problem with the Tyranid Warrior, for example? If he makes it into close combat a lone marine is in mortal danger, it seems to me.

Alex

ak-73 said:

I thought the same thing tbh. But in actual combat it just didnt play out as like that. The warriors struck me as almost equal....almost.... to the SMs. At rank 1. there are 8 ranks lol... The game is great dont get me wrong, also ive not fought anything other than tyranids. But the tyranids were just boring to fight. the only thing that would make them not so boring would be to use ridiculous numbers or just power them up. More Pen would defineatley help them.

a scythe talon is plenty able to pierce power armor even at the chest. Their problem is, by the time they get through armor... if they do... they wont get through the toughness. i think unnatural toughness is a bit much for SMs. Maybe have them ignore the effects of fatigue from wounds or give them an ability from their blood clotting organ that lets them roll a test for each wound suffered to negate it. but going though a toughness of 8 after 8-10 armor its a lot for even the warrior to handle unless you give him rending claws. but not all warriors have or should have, rending claws.

rodeoclownjihad said:

No game will ever match the expectations of all the individual players or GMs 100% - it's simply not possible to cater to that many different, often wildly disparate, interpretations. The published rules provide a baseline, which should always be adjusted to the personal tastes of the user, because those of us writing the books don't know, and can't account for, what any given individual wants out of a game.

rodeoclownjihad said:

I'm confused. Even in the chest, the average rank 1 DW has a soak of 18. Factoring in Pen, a successful attack by nod warrior does 1D10-1 net damage. If you think that ain't tough enough, make them slightly larger beasts (+10 S, +10 T, giving +2 to bonus each). And rending claws are even better with a good roll - 1D10+4 net damage. What confuses me is that you state "if they get through the armor"... they cannot but not penetrate.

Or or you talking about hormagaunts? Well, Oblivion's Edge standard encounter is 3 hordes of magnitude 30 each. But these have 3D10+5, Pen 3 each. They should do about 6 pts of net damage per hitting attack in the chest. (2 more everywhere else). Only when reduced to below mag 20 before they can reach close combat, their net damage should be very weak.

Or is my math off? Did you run it differently?

@N0-1_H3r3: There's truth to what you say but I can't quite agree with it nonetheless. An rpg company with such a license should have an idea of what the customer wants. And I am sure FFG has put some thought into it. And I think their decision to use novel level marines does make sense too... it would be much harder to design survivable missions involving many of the bad guys that the fans want to see. Do you really want to start out as a 20 or 30 point character? You'd have run everytime a semi-sizeable Ork detachment would come along. Just do the math with the TT point system. It would be doable but probably disappoint a lot of people in the end.

Still the rulebook has a few technical errors that shouldn't have happened (some weapon damages, righteous fury, some lack of clarity in the new rules segments, etc.).

Alex

ak-73 said:

Oh, of course... but look at the 40k community, even just the specific sub-set that exists here, and you'll see a community with a lot of different ideas over what the 40k universe is and should be. Put half a dozen 40k fans in a room and ask them to define the setting, and you'll come away with a dozen different interpretations, some of which will differ from others so much that there is almost no easy way to reconcile them. Is it sci-fi or fantasy, or somewhere in between? Are the Astartes just surgically-enhanced humans, or are they demigod-warriors far beyond mortal abilities... or somewhere in between? How many crew on a starship is too many, or too few? How many psykers are there, and how dangerous are their abilities? How much room is there for things not officially defined?

And that's just picking areas of dispute that've been subjects of discussion on these forums, off the top of my head.

How do you write for an audience that has such a wide range of opinions as to how the setting should be depicted?

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Two options:

Preferrably, you have your own vision and the feeling that it will have a large appeal. Then you follow your intuition.

Secondly, you listen closely, perhaps do a stuy, find the middle ground and tweak it for maximum appeal.

Alex