Apologies if this has been answered, I could not find it when I searched.

Do you regain a point of Cohesion whenever a Fate Point is spent for any reason, or only when a Fate Point is spent specifically to restore Cohesion?

It doesn't matter what the Fate Point is spent on or by whom, is my take;

p. 212 - "any member of the Kill-team spends a Fate Point"

since there is no condition mentioned, there is no condition to the spending/regaining.

Ariolan said:

I'm going with this notion as well. It seems silly to spend a Fate Point to only gain back 1 Cohesion... especially considering the cost of most squad based abilities, you'd have to spend 2-3 Fate Points on JUST gaining Cohesion.

It flows more smoothly to just regain that Cohesion as a byproduct of spending a Fate Point.

The real question is can this raise the Cohesion beyond the starting mission cohesion?

SpawnoChaos said:

As far as that goes, I would say no, otherwise players could dump unspent Fate Points at the end of a game session to boost Cohesion (which does not ablate by itself), potentially ending the mission with more Cohesion than they began with.

I don't see that. Why should spending a fate point for any kind of purpose increase cohesion? As per my reading of it, it's just sloppily written because in all other instances you spend a fate point for a specific intended effect (killing strike, etc).

The use to this is quite different in my mind. The primary mode of recovery remains objectives. But if your Black Templar is in Battle with a Demon Prince but there's only 1 point of Cohesion left, he (or someone else) may spend a Fate Point so that he can trigger Holy Vengeance in order to slay the thing.

If you want certainty, write to FFG.

Alex

I will allow players to use Fate to gain Cohesion specifically, but they will not gain Cohesion by spending Fate on just anything.

But remeber the "... have completed a monumental task or roleplayed well..." part of regaining cohesion. If one of my players spends Fate to do something really cool I might give them cohesion back for that.

ak-73 said:

If you read the section on what fate points can be spent on there is no mention of spending one to regain cohesion. The only remotely close use of a fate point is that you can use one to go into squad mode without making a test to do so.

The section on regaining Cohesion is not "sloppily" written at all, it is quite clear on the subject.

You may reread the section on fate points to confirm.

Lochtain said:

As I mentioned to the other player, read the section on fate points, you will not find spending one fate point for one cohesion as an option. The rulebook is quite specifically clear, if a member of the kill team spends a fate point for any reason, you regain cohesion.

IF as a gm you feel this is too much, simply add accurate or blast weapons to hordes to reduce cohesion more frequently. Reworking the rules is never a good idea as a GM, simply changing the situations presented in your missions to deliberately lower cohesion more often however is a good way to balance the system.

If you are playing where your team has to spend a point specifically to regain cohesion, no offense but you are interpreting the rules wrong.

Warhawk X said:

No, the section is sloppily reaction and the evidence for this is this topic here.

If you would note that the section on Fate Points also does not list the spending of a karma point for killing strike which all PCs possess? Or a host of other specialized uses in various contexts (example: Call to Vengeance talent) through various abilities which I have labeled in my initial critique of Deathwatch as Fate Point Use proliferation ?

You might as well claim that spending a fate point on Killing Strike also gives you one of the bonuses listed under the Fate Point section as a side-effect. Spending a Fate Point is tied to one specific effect you are seeking to achieve and you must state that one. That's how I read it until FFG tells me otherwise.

And the way I am probably going to run it even if FFG would tell me otherwise. ;-)

Alex

ak-73 said:

Quite frankly, I think that all of us here are experience enough GM's to know how we're going to run our games. Some will accept the interpretations that FFG hands us, while others will modify it to suite their campaigns.

I'm sure that "to each his own" will suffice.

The reason I asked in the first place is because there is what appears (to me at least) to be a conflict in the RAW. On page 171, under the description for the back banner, it states "When the Kill-team’s leader spends a Fate Point to restore a point of Cohesion (see page 212), he restores one bonus point of lost Cohesion if he is wearing a back banner" (emphasis is mine). On page 212, under Recovering Lost Cohesion, it says "One point of Cohesion will be recovered by the Kill-team if: (1st entry deleted) Any member of the Kill-team spends a Fate Point ".

It certainly seems to me that spending a Fate Point solely to restore a single point of Cohesion is a poor use of a Fate Point, but the rules under the back banner suggest that could be the case. I doubt I'd have any trouble persuading our GM to allow a point of Cohesion to be restored when any Fate Point is spent, but I thought I'd ask and see if there was an official ruling on the question. Apparently there is not.

ak-73 said:

Page 212 in the English language states the exact following phrases.

"One point of cohesion will be recovered by the Kill-Team if: <(This meaning the following conditions are met)

1. The Kill-Team Completes one of their Mission Objectives. (Meaning if you complete an objective, you get one back)

2. ANY MEMBER OF THE KILL-TEAM SPENDS A FATE POINT. (Note, that they do not specify on what you spend it on, just that you have spent it)."

The point of cohesion is to maintain the squads ability to function under the direst of circumstances, as I understand it and according to lore, and the game design of deathwatch cohesion and damage caused to cohesion will ONLY break a squad in the most SEVERE encounters they could face. Even if you research how cohesion is lost, you will find that you cannot take more than one cohesion damage per round no matter what circumstances the team is under.

I believe that the section is written as it should be and that poor GM is trying to ensure failure in his players by argueing against the stated rules of the book. As a GM, it should be VERY hard to the Kill-Teams cohesion to the point where it is a resource they cannot afford to lose anymore of, and then instead have to spend fate points just to become functional again.

Fate points are a resource that a GM can give and make spent pretty easily, there is no reason in any good GM's mind to limit that resource, but lower it as normal per the rules of the game, while limiting how much of it can be regained.

Even the free campaigns they give out specifically final saction opens with a battle against an infinate Enormous horde of enemy rebels that have no destinct end point for the encounter other than getting through 5 turning points. There is even a subsection stating "When you feel the PC's are battered enough have the rebels retreat". This type of opening to a mission is meant to lower starting resources overall to ensure the tasks ahead are even harder than normal. I can't see any group successfully having the mission bar of resources overall restricted, and then on top of it a poor GM lowering further resources such as cohesion as a mechanics rule.

That sort of limitations on a group with a game of this nature is probably one of the worst settings for playing an RPG. You can't have fun if your GM is out to get you with a rules breaker, and you can't complete anything right without a gm that understands the fair way to limit and use up player resources. The formula of lowering resources and aiming high on missions will eventually end up with a high stress group and no one having fun, and I feel bad for the players that have to sit through your missions in that environment.

It's easier to alter encounters, than to alter the rules.

Direach said:

Direach

Regarding the back banner, that is an interesting point, however note that the back banner must be worn by the team leader in order to even get the bonus from the banner, meaning there is a useful limit of one per squad for this item.

I agree those are conflicting entries, but I would say the entry about regaining cohesion as a rules entry, supersedes the specific item that may have a typo. Think of how the book was designed, you have a rules section, and an item section conflicting, usually the item is wrong.

Warhawk X said:

No, I'm not making an interpretation of the rules, I'm changing them to more suit the way I think the game should work. ^^

I (and most of my group as well) have always seen rule books as more a framework of guidelines than rules, especially the DH/DW/RT stuff, as the rules are very ofthen poorly thought through. Whenever we start playing a new system we sit down and have a talk about the system, what we feel works best and what needs changing. Cohesion was one of the things that came up before we started playing Deathwatch, along with the rules for Full Auto Bursts, Toughness Bonus, sustaining Psychic Powers and many more things.

I simply pointed out that this is a way of changing the system that I think works, not that it is a correct RAW interpretation of the rules. I'm sorry if that was not clear.

But then rulebooks ARE simply a set of guidelines. Even the writers are often quote as saying this.

It's only rules lawyers who seem to think they're set in stone...

Space Monkey said:

Indeed. Certainly, I say it all the time...

But at the same time, guidelines are useful to follow. Gaming does require a few restrictions on what players do, else people start doing mary sue like things.

Certainly, doing what is fun is best, but don't fix what ain't broken.

Lochtain said:

Okay, that was taken out of context and posted towards a GM who appears to be punishing his players resources deliberately, so I'm glad that was clarified before 3 other people got on my case about it.

If you go around and look at some of the other posts by that same GM there's some pretty strong evidence that that guy is out to get his DW players killed, or limit their resources at all times.

Jumping back to topic, you mentioned you changed the rules, even I have done this when it makes sense and is something that needed to be changed. For example there was a few things in DnD 4.0 I felt just punished the players too much to continue to use the system as was. So I had to change them with recommendations from my group.

Now I have my first session of DW tonight, and yeah at the moment I am a rules lawyer because I have not seen the game working in action, though my understanding of 40k would lead me to believe cohesion is fine as is.

I am curious what you all changed and why, because if you did so so the group had more fun overall or it balanced the system better I'd like to hear about that. Heck, if it makes sense and works better I might adopt the same systems very quickly.

KommissarK said:

I always love your posts, lol. Seems like we agree on the keeping it fun for your players side of being a gm.

*cough* "They're not YOUR party they're THE party! They're the enemy!"
"But... they're my friends..."
"KASLAP!" " *cough* Penny-Arcade Quote

Reasons for playing RPGs are different for everyone, as are GM styles, everything from the Storyteller, to the hardcore VideoGames on Paper player. That being said, I tend to go with Rules as Written for the first... several sessions of any new game system? Why? Because I have not personally had hours and hours of playtest time on it and, I paid the 60$ for the book, I have to assume SOME of that money went to the design guys who spent time checking this stuff to make sure it works.

That being said, if after awhile I find out that my PC's are no longer having fun (or that I'M no longer having fun) because of a rule or set of rules, I change them. The rules say, you spend Fate, you get cohesion back, and under the K.I.S.S standard (that's keep it simple stupid) then that's what I'm going with. If I find that that gives my Kill-Team a retarded amount of Cohesion, I'll have to fix it, but I won't do as such until I test it out.

Honestly, without having played past the Demo-Adventure (first real game tomorrow!), I can see blowing all 7 of my group's starting Cohesion in decent sized combat, let alone over the course of a mission. Take all advice with a grain of salt and SEE what works best for you, and that being said, will allow you to check if something's broken or not, and as was said before, if it's not broke, dont' fix it.

BrotherHostower said:

Except that what is RAW isn't as clear as some who have a specific interpretation claim it to be.

Alex

This last session that I ran this weekend had the ENTIRE KILL TEAM down to 1-2 wounds left, 0 Fate points, AND no Demeanor actions left after 6 hours of gaming.

They quickly learned that they NEEDED to be in Squad Mode to survive and that they were not nearly as invincible as they thought they were. If they had to spend Fate Points to regain Cohesion specifically, well... my above status would have instead been, "Kill Team KIA".

SpawnoChaos said:

On the other hand my Kill Team after 10 hours of gaming HAVEN'T LOST a single wound/FP/bolt round because my session was about them ARRANGING FLOWERS for the Emperor (though they did thought about killing the techmarine for his preposterous use of lilacs). This means that players shouldn't be able to regain cohesion at all.

I'm sorry, but your example validates nothing - what happened depended on random dice rolls, but mostly on your calls as a GM (type of enemies, layout of encounters, etc.).

The way I read the rules is that you need to spend the FP specifically to regain the cohesion and I'll proably play it that way, even if it turns out RAW are meant to be interpreted the other way. Why? Mainly because your average SM has 3-4 FPs (assuming the rate they're acquired as rewards more or less matches the 'burn factor'). Playing with the average KT of 4 players, that's about 14 cohesion regained per session, Now - unless you're playing 6 hours non-stop combat - that's virtually a Bolter Charge every other round. For me this means that a. special squad actions are not so special anymore, being used as often as firing your bolter and b. it makes combat even less of a challenge - while I fully support SM characters being over the top, I'd like the occasional Hive Tyrant to be a challenge for my group.

Obviously YMMV.

decPL said:

Believe me, I've given up trying to validate points on a RPG board where the rules are only suggestions to be followed in the name of increased fun, since that's really what they are.

I am merely stating what happened this weekend and why interpreting the rules as "Spend Fate Point on anything = 1 cohesion back" worked better for us in our particular circumstance, because really, all of this is purely from everyones own perspective and play style.

ak-73 said:

You know, you could just email the devs for an answer regarding this instead of just outright saying "Hey, the book ain't clear and is poorly written." Because lets be fair I think it's your responsibility as a GM to find out information about how a game is played before even sitting down with your group.

Which is why I'm on the forums at all, and on top of it I was prettymuch the only person to email about medicae use to a dev member and post it on the forums.

Also regarding this issue, I again, emailed the dev team for an answer.

Stay tuned for an actual answer on this issue regarding what the book was intenteded to say.

For people who want to change the rules, whatever you want. For peeps like Alex who interpret things differently, again, stay tuned.

Though knowing his stubborness on the forums he won't change the rule even if he interpreted it incorrectly.