MILLANDSON said:

I used the term Soul Bound to reference the rules that were introduced in RT, as rules for soul bound psykers, not the trait. Maybe we should refer to the Asc/RT/DW rules as FUP casting?

Dulahan

You seem to have gotten hung up on the names of the classes and names of the ranks within the classes of DH. A lot of people do. The classes in DH, with the exception of Tech Priest and Psykers, are very much archetypes that are very flexible. Ignore the rank titles, they are meaningless.

MILLANDSON said:

I think Fettered/Unfettered is awful.

Except that normal psykers aren't soul-bound in the same way as Astropaths. To be a DH psyker with the RT psychic system, you wouldn't use that rule.

Yes you would. It says so specifically. Astropaths have different benefits,

ItsUncertainWho said:

Except they aren't. Even their schemes are very much geared towards being that, even the fluff tied to each rank description implies they aren't meaningless. And if "a lot of people do" then it's a problem. Because if it were not a problem then a lot of people would not. All these archetypes are geared towards playing those sorts of characters, right down to the advances available to them. The very nature of the game is expecting that to be the case.

Further, any game that doesn't explicitly deal with issues like that where 'by the book' GMs are concerned is a failure. The DH games I've been in, with otherwise fine GMs, treat them AS what they say. You play a guardsmen and it says you are a sergeant on the rank scheme, you ARE a guardsman whose rank is sergeant. An Arbites IS an Arbites. They are not archetypes. they are what they are. I like games "By the book" as well, talk about golden rule all you want, but frankly, not every GM will do that. To the vast majority, you are exactly what it says. That doesn't make them a bad GM, it makes them a typical GM, the sorts who aren't constantly on message boards and interested in the ins and outs and theories of a game - heck, many of the players weren't even interested in conversations about such stuff. And it's still impossible to make many different character types. Commissar? Impossible by the book (Chaliced Commisariat is NOTHING like a real commissar, nor are any of the other archetypes, I don't even consider this open to debate. They just aren't).

"By the book" is a valid way of playing, it is not badwrongfun, it is not a wrong way to play, it is the main way of playing for most - heck, most GMs I know refuse to even aknowledge errata that's published after the fact unless it shows up specifically in a book they buy for the game later. Frankly, I consider it the best way of playing, that way everyone knows what they're getting into when they start. I can't count the games (Not just, in fact, primarilly not any 40k games) I've gone to play, all excited because I liked how it was 'by the book' and ended up in some crazy mishmash of pages upon pages of house rules that made the game nothing like I signed up for. Some ended up fun, most ended up not fun.

Further, Guardsman is just stupid, but hardly the only criminal one here. You very rarely start from Private and work up to an officer. Normally, the NCOs remain such, yes there are exceptions, but that's exceptions. Officers would be a separate class. By the book, you start there.

If they were meant as Guidelines, then they shouldn't be named as they are, they should be named generically, and say they're guidelines. The fact of the matter is, they don't.

Heck, even in setting a Storm Trooper fresh from the Schola is -far- different from a Guardsman fresh outta basic, and even respected by veteran guardsmen (Now, I admit this is a very different sort of beast, causing problems of its own since it entails stormtroopers can't be rank 1, which is a bit iffy - unless we presume the PCs are all already more than usual, but I digress). And a guardsman fresh out of basic is considered far beyond a typical PDF Veteran.

Dulahan said:

I agree with you completely. This has always been a pet peeve of mine. I know the latter intent of the careers was something generic but still iconic for those who might not know much about the 40k universe to just dive in, but it's hard leaving words in the book behind. Names are a powerful thing and when you have "Arbitrator" written on your character sheet and the rank you're looking at is called Arbitrator as well, it becomes a little more difficult envisioning your character as a lawless bounty-hunter. Those rank names mean something and a lot of players of the game take them to heart. I had an adept in one game who, after the first three or so sessions, never saw the inside of an administratum building for some time, was hunted as an outlaw, but still had a hard time getting it in her head that when she hit the Comptroller rank, she wasn't actually an Administratum Comptroller.

Going by what FFG did with the Battle Sister, it seems they might be working the confusion of the rank names out of the system, a good thing. While the fluff they bring is nice, it would be much better served to see the iconic careers and specialties as alt ranks and, again, that seems to be the pattern being fallowed :-D

One thing I'm doing for my next DH game is working up a print-off of the advancement tables (to include the errata) for all the careers for my players and, in doing so, I'll be removing the rank names. I'm also renaming some of the careers. Adept is becoming Scribe (nice and generic that one and backed up on DH pg 342 ;-) Arbitrator is getting a heavier makeover becoming Hunter (and having the peer (adaptus arbitrator) moved to a higher rank, and having a lot of the arbitrator lore moved to higher ranks or removed and some more small skill rearranging to help promote a generic hunter of most anything that lives and breaths be they criminals or beasts... with a quick alt rank of Xeno-Beast Hunter, it would fit the noble xeno hunter you mentioned earlier perfictly). Finally Guardsmen is becoming Guard (it's close, can still be a Guardsmen, but, by name alone, could easily be envisioned in other lights as well). Also, while I'm at it, I'm eliminating the branches. Instead of a branch, I'm taking the more iconic branch and turning it into one or two alt ranks available at the branch as well as making a few Iconic alt ranks for Rank 1 such as Arbitrator (which will have the removed lore skills plus some skills from higher up so an arbiter could be made right out of the gate).

Oh, and I think a Storm Trooper fresh out of the Schola would best be represented by using the Storm Trooper Career in assension... they're most definitly an assension level type of character. Fresh out of the Schola and already rank 9... that's why the old vets respect and fear them ;-)

MILLANDSON said:

Are you serious ?

I sure hope it will not be the same vague sidebar we got in the Rogue Trader core book

MILLANDSON said:

A matter of opinion and one that you are wrong in.

MILLANDSON said:

Which goes back to the whole concept of now I have to buy another book to convert rules/stats. Something such as this should be in their free PDF offers. Or released in multiple books.

Peacekeeper_b said:

And what makes it wrong I wonder? Saying it without arguments to back it up makes for boring conversation. I know I'm curious to know why is that

Braddoc said:

The same argument Millandson used to state the the RT system was better. Purely flat out opnion.

Ok, so you guys are just trying to heat a house in winter wihtout walls. What a joke

Braddoc said:

OK reasons why I like the Dark Heresy system better.

I like the more risk. Even the most basic power can cause bad things to happen for tampering with the warp.

I like that the system for it is different then the core game system of % dice. It gives the psyker rules a otherworldly feel in my opinion. It follows it own rules and laws. Its different then the rest of the universe, its the warp.

I like it being based on willpower bonus instead of other stats based on the power.

I like the power system between minor and disicplines.

And it was first so I was used to it when it changed.

Peacekeeper_b said:

And I thank you

MILLANDSON said:

Which makes me wonder what else is going to be in Rites of Battle that I may want for DH?

I was seriously considering passing up any further Deathwatch books (save the upcoming monster manual) as I have found it a most uninteresting game. What I have picked up has become solely for the expanded selection of xenos and foes, but has largely become a "sigh, should have got the PDF".

So if you can, without breaking your NDA, tell me/us what else in the book is good for DH or even RT I would be very grateful.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Remember, just because someone signs an NDA doesn't mean they get full and unrestricted access to all unreleased material. As far as I'm aware, Millandson playtests Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader material, and thus isn't typically given Deathwatch manuscripts to test (though I may be wrong here), much as I don't see any work-in-progress material that isn't directly relevant to what I'm working on at the time.

As a result, with many books, even playtesters and freelancers don't know any more than anyone else, as we only see the stuff on a need-to-know basis.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

And even than stuff can get quickly cut or modified, so your not always seeing the final product.

*Shrug*

Dulahan said:

This smacks of a lack of imagination to me. The classes are as flexible as you want them to be. Alternate ranks, background packages, and elite advances all make for lots of flexibility. When you look past the BI books (DH, IH, DotDG) and look at what FFG has been doing with expanding the use of alt ranks and backgrounds you can get a better idea of the intent of the classes.

The Gaurdsman can be used to represent IG, PDF, Mercenary, a very hardline Commissar, etc.

The Adept can be used for Administratum, Pilots, Spy, etc.

The Arbitrator can be an Arbities officer, planetary Enforcer, Bounty Hunter, P.I., Mob enforcer, Etc

My prefered class for a Commissar is the Cleric, others like the Arbitrator. Both are viable options and make quite different, but very effective Commissars.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

I wouldn't need to break an NDA, "Rites of Battle" is already released to the public. All you'd have to do is go to the DW forum and you'd see a few threads on the contents of the book, including a full contents list and explanation of several parts of the book.

Also, as N0-1-H3r3 said, I'm not a playtester for Deathwatch (other than the demo games, because they wanted people who hadn't playtested the full rules to do it, as it had to be clear and usable by people with no knowledge of the new rules), though I am a playtester for the other 40k RPG lines. As such, I don't get to see Deathwatch manuscripts ahead of time, which means that what they contain is just as much a mystery, until I have the book in my hands, to me as it is to you.

ItsUncertainWho said:

And that's pretty insulting. Because again, it doesn't matter what *I* think. It matters what all my GMs think. I've even mentioned that sort of thing to one of them, and their answer "But that's not how it is in the book." Heck, you could suggest "I want to be this, and use this tree." "Sorry, that's not a class in the books, and that one doesn't work that way." The book is the common thing that we all use when we play. It's what we know. And the books as written assume you're exactly what that 'class' says you are. It doesn't matter what the 'imagination' is, it's the truth of the matter. Any of your 'imagination' is just house ruling, not the original intent. The book is what matters, and its intent is what everyone deals with, especially Joe Average Gamer who doesn't care about erratta or browsing message boards or whatever.

Also remember some GMs don't own the whole line, or don't like certain books. They go by what is in the corebook.

Insult them all you will. But frankly. I consider it a failure of the book itself, and a problem. Don't get me wrong, I like how FFG is expanding it. We still aren't there, but eventually we'll hopefully be at a point where it truly is flexible. And you can play any concept with any GM (at least that has all the books). I just wish the Guard Book had come when Blood of Martyrs did, because it promises to be the most useful if you ask me.

Dulahan said:

Actually, the book, in several places, states that you can use those trees for any career, including the Guardsman (it states it could be a mercenary, etc, up to and including allowing different starting gear to represent this) and others.

Just because your GM is stubborn doesn't mean he's right, or that you are right, when it comes to the game as written.

Using, say, a Scum career for a more assassin-esque character (just one that uses his silver tongue to get close before killing them) is entirely legitimate without any houserules or deviating from what is said in the book.

MILLANDSON said:

It does indeed state that a few times, but it sets up no real guidelines on how to do that. In fact it took 3 years before they published the first real example of alternate starting career packages. Not ranks, not background packages, but career packages.

Second, the very named rank structure as well as the existing background packages and pretty much most of the alternate career ranks (and even several of the ascended careers) focus on the title of the career instead of the intent of the career. Yes, warrior sounds much more generic then Guardsman which immediately conjures up a 40K archtype. But Warrior, with Guardsman as a rank 1 alternate starting career package/rank feels much more natural.

Still, the game is evolving into a more coherent and flexible game and I expect there to one day be a revised edition that will do away with rank names and be more precise on altering starting careers.

ItsUncertainWho said:

Lets not be too hasty in giving FFG the credit here. Alternate Ranks and background packages began in IHB so its not like FFG created the notion, all they have done is add some more. Some great ones, some not so great.

And honestly, I have found about 70% of their background packages as left wanting.

And for the notion that you could use those careers to create all those "examples" while it is true, your Hardline Commissar using the Guardsman career path will suck at his core job (low Fel, low WP, low INT) and there is no true way of creating a good officer and so forth.

The core notation of careers are hardwired fairly strong in the game.

Also remember some GMs don't own the whole line, or don't like certain books. They go by what is in the corebook.

I posit to you sir, that the 'books as written' include all officially released books, supplements, PDFs and errata. Hence by not including all material you are 'imagining' that such things do not exist and are in effect houseruling.

I do actually agree with you, from the other direction though. I'd never play the rules so hard, rules were made to be broken after all. If they're going to be generic, then call it Arch-Militant or something. If its something specific, Adeptus Sororitas battle sister, can comes iwth power armour. this thing where its kinda generic but has specifically 'Arbitrator' advances is wishy washy and annoying. I'd rather Arbitrator was an alt rank, background package or elite advance for the 'Enforcer' class.

Peacekeeper_b said:

He will suck at his core job compared to a Cleric, not compared to another Guardsman. (What counts as "low?" Fel, WP, and INT in the high 30s are easily possible for a starting Guardsman with no advances at all.)

Peacekeeper_b said:

I'm sorry, but what?

How is there any need for guidelines for the simple act of calling something by a different name? Because that's literally all that is required. You're the one bringing the assumption of rules changes into the matter, when declaring that your "Guardsman" is actually a mercenary essentially just requires that declaration (and hey, the rulebook even allows for it - you don't have to take the Uplifting Primer in your starting gear, you can take a mercenary ID instead). The same can be said pretty much anywhere - the Skitarius Hypaspist character (literally just a Forge World Guardsman, though it did inspire me to write up a set of rules later) one of my players had a few years back was equipped with recoil gloves and infra-goggles which we just described as implants. The Abhumans supplement I wrote suggested representing Squat Engineers with the Techpriest career path, renaming various parts of it as needed.

Just renaming things can go a really long way to increase the perception of flexibility.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Indeed, and when creating a Guardsman character you also get a choice between themed items - the Primer or Mercenary License for example, you can just grab the Mercenary License and say he's a retired Guardsman or never went through it at all. Nothing is stopping you, and I am kind of unsure how I would want them to integrate rules on how to actually do such a thing, since I can't really see where they could really add much to it. Hell, later advances even set it up better - the Blood Sworn for example make for great bounty hunter/mercenary off ranks, but not so great if you are playing the tried and true Imperium's Guardsman.

..

And you just stated that. Argh. Oh well, I will let it stand in my text since it backs it up still. I knew there was a reason I don't post this early in the morning.

But indeed; there's a lot of things you can draw from each career, and many actually give suggestions on slightly differing ways to play it. The only problems for playing too massive variations without house ruling I find are Tech-Priests and Sororitas, since they are tied up into such a specific facet of the Imperium. Some easy house ruling can free them up to be something else, but I prefer they stay the way they are themed.

I think for the heck of it later today I'm going to try to make a Rank 4 Commissar using the IG career path just to show it can be done.