I'm a little dumbstruck by some of the errata answers. We'll swiftly brush aside the 'duh?' factor of giving Spacewolves a free talent because it has the same name as something they get in tabletop (although frankly they needed something decent!), and move onto the Chapter squad mode abilities.

Given the original reading of the rules, things were a little unclear as regards which patterns were available in squad mode. The 'general' rules mention that only marines of a specific Chapter gain the benefits of using a Chapter ability (making no mention of the KT leader), whereas the specific rules in oaths seemed to indicate that in addition to 'oath' patterns the team would have access to their IC's Chapter patterns. It was hazy, and it could be argued that the team ONLY had access to 'oath' patterns. In the end our group made the choice to allow the team access to 'oath' patterns PLUS the Chapter patterns of the leader. It just made sense, because:

1) The wording was ambiguous, but 'specific trumps general' is generally how rules are supposed to be read, and the specific rules in oaths seemed to be over-riding the general rule of 'you only gain the bonuses of your own chapter pattern'.

2) 'I'm in charge, today we're doing it my way' seems to make sense. The leader uses the tactics favoured by his Chapter, and inspires his team-mates in a 'chapter-specific' manner. The team are working together and using the tactical wisdom of the guy in charge and -potentially- from a tactical marine with the right ability.

3) The game repeatedly states that the 'point' of DeathWatch is for the Marines from diverse backgrounds to merge together into a flexible team, using each of their strengths and overcoming old rivalries. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. And thus it would seem logical that this would apply to tactical strength.

4) There is a ton of space given over to Chapter patterns, and they're rather good. It would seem like a complete waste of space in the book if they were only available in-Chapter (and why would one waste Cohesion triggering a 'selfish' pattern nine times out of ten when one could trigger something that will give the whole team an edge) or thanks to a tactical marine having to take a specific class ability.

5) The rules try to encourage team leadership swapping between missions and everyone having a go. So logically there would/should be some mechanical benefit of doing so, such as being able to tailor things not only based on class (for the oath) but on Chapter - say by putting the Templar in charge if there's witches and the like to be faced. If the Chaper patterns were not available based on team leadership there's no point changing leaders, as it simply means that all the party would have to 'waste' XP on Command and Fellowship skills.

Given all of this I was a little shocked to find that we're doing it wrong, according to the errata. Does anyone else have issue with this, or do others intend playing it the 'other' way? I really can't see any reasoning -mechanically or otherwise- not to make the leader's abilities usable by all, so as to encourage tactical flexibility and 'swapping' of leadership and to actually get some use out of the space devoted to them.

The only reason that I can see the errata ruling makes sense is to not make tactical marines a bit of a bad character class choice next to devastators!

What do others feel on the matter? Who uses the errata'ed way compared to the other reading?

Chapter abilities are not a waste because there is no limit to how many different abilities the team can run at the same time. The only limitation is that only one sustained power can be used at the same time. And of course the usual stuff like no marine may benefit from more than one power, etc.

Alex

Myself, along with my players, strongly dislike how the chapter abilities are handled. As such, we are using the following rough house rule:

The Kill-Team leader may try share the benefits of his Chapter's Squad Mode abilities with his Battle Brothers. This requires a Hard (-20) Fellowship Test. At Rank 3 the Fellowship Test becomes Challenging (+0). Having the Command skill will give you a +10 to the test.

Doing this however also means that Tactical Expertise needs to change. Our Tactical Marine didn't take it, but for completeness we are saying that Tactical Expertise requires no check to extend the powers to the rest of the kill-team.

We've yet to use this though, so its all non-tested.

It seems an enormous waste of resources to use 3 points on an individual team member in order to use an ability when instead the entire team could benefit. And seeing as the marines can all elect to trigger abilities, I can see this being a point of contention if one player habitually elects to use 'their' abilities whenever they fancy it. After all, I assume that most squads have only around 5-6 points of Cohesion at start-up? Plus perhaps another 5 added throughout the mission for objectives complete? So a single use for one PC of an ability is going to suck 20-30% of the team resources, with no gain for the vast majority of the team.

Other than the opinion that it's not wasteful, would you say that there are benefits to the errata'ed version of the rule? And if so what would they be?

Basically, the 'other' reading of this rule makes more sense in every way: Mechanically, in keeping with the game's stated aims, and 'in character', and I'd like to see a little bit of justification of the Errata version, and for it to make a bit of sense.

It works the following way: the kill-team chooses a sustained ability and activates it. If there's a Tactical Marine with Tactical Expertise he might activate one of his chapter abilties, otherwise it's one of the oath abiltities. Sustained abiltity changes should be infrequent anyway and once you have paid for it, you can reactivate it at any time later at no additional cost.

In addition to that you have the non-sustained abilties and these get triggered then situationally in addition to the more general sustained abilties. I would suggest as a house rule that you players can vote on squad mode ability uses if there is any dissent.

All-in-all it works like this (as an example): your Ultramarine Tactical leader maintains his Lead By Example power and having passed his Tactical Expertise test everyone benefits from it. Later on in the mission, the KT gets charged by a broodlord. The Space Wolf nearby in the meantime activates Pack Tactics so that the Broodlord gets distracted. And since he's pretty badass, the Black Templar announces he is going to trigger Holy Vengeance to tear the Broodlord up.

Kinda like that. In general you spend Cohesion when it hits the fan or when circumstances have changed and you require a new sustained power.

Alex

IMHO the most of the Capter abilitys are useless. Cohesion costs are too high, duration is too short, effects are too weak. the only one how can use them effective are Tac-Marines or the Team leader (with make in my case just 2 Players in a 8 player group) and for the littel use they over i think the recieved not enough attention from the designers. For me it looks like a they had to cover a couple of white pages in the book and some one came up with this idea but no one had the time to create something of worth.

Vendettar said:

This is 100% not true. The Solo/Squad/Cohesion rules were in the very first playtest packet we received. In fact, the core rulebook had to lose pages to go to print, not gain them.

you missunderstood me. waht i said was just related to the Chaper-squad-abilitys. the rest can mostly stay the way it is

Vendettar said:

Which chapter abilities are useless then? Surely not Lead By Example. The Space Wolves again seem to have received a bit of the short end of the stick but otherwise...

Alex

You misunderstand: I understand how the rules work. I also understand that CPs are for use in crucial moments. [Which further underscores the 'WTF?!' nature of the errata: That such a precious resource is intended to be routinely squandered by a player in a 'selfish' manner.]

The errata'ed version was one of the two possible interpretations tabled within the group, but it was discarded as the possible intended one for the variety of reasons that were initially outlined: It seemed contrary to the game designers intentions, et cetera, et cetera.

I came here seeking a little explaination as regards the implementation of this 'version' of the rule over the other one, the line of logic behind it, the insight of other gaming groups into this seemingly poorly-reasoned errata, and for a straw poll of opinions relating to it.

I think the idea behind is that there are

a) common squad level tactics that every kill-team can use.
b) good reasons from a game (vs simulation) pov to enforce a strategic choice at the start: pick the right oath and you'll have it easier, pick the wrong one and it get tougher than necessary.
c) chapter-specific reasons that can't be easily shared.

Now the only problem I have with this set-up is that there are no rules for learning chapter-specific squad mode abilities by spending XP. Because that way, you have a narrative: a team of Marines coming from diverse chapters, slowly growing together as a team.

My suggestion would be that you adjust the Deathwatch Advancement table so that you can pick a new Talent that allows learning a single squad mode ability from a different chapter at an XP cost of ?X?. (As such I have a bit gripes about every Tactical being able to share chapter abilities, not just if being the team leader. I consider chapter abilities to be a sweet bonus to codex abilities.)

I have slim to marginal hopes that such rules will be in RoB but if it was in Rites, it would be double awesome.

Alex

Wouldn't the increase of Chapter Specific patterns effectiveness as character Rank is increased model learning them? ie: at Rank 1 the characters only have a basic grasp of the tactic and are not really using it, in the same way that at Rank 1 the team aren't really effectively using Bolter Assault, compared with later versions.

Of course that would require the Chapter Patterns to improve with Rank, which I'm not sure that many (any?) of them actually do.

Psyx said:

Yeah but it lacks the narrative I mentioned. Which I believe was one of the design goals of DW as I listen to the 40kradio with Ross Watson.

Alex

If only the squad leaders chapter ability could have been used, then what does a tac marine with tac expertise gain if he is not the squad leader? (answer, nothing, hence why the errata clarifies that the RAW/RAI is that chapter abilities are not limited by squad leader selection). It was actually clarified before the errata, in emails from Ross, stating that p219 is incorrect in its wording, and that any marine can activate their own chapter's squad mode patterns.

I think this fits just fine within the intent. Its like how we have solo mode, where a marine is acting on his own as if with his chapter, here in squad mode, we have chapter patterns, letting marines acting in the squad, act as if in their own chapter.

On cohesion points, depending on how you run things, they are far more common. Note that now the errata also now states that the starting CP pool is not the maximum (and that there is no cap on how many you can have). Combine this with the possible reading of the rules to allow that every fate point spent (for whatever reason) is +1 cp (+2 if back banners are in play), and all of a sudden, cohesion points are far more common. Also, the clarification of cost for sustained abilities means that it actually might be a good idea to allow the dark angel to enter sustained supression, for the entire mission , if only to get that free overwatch shot once per encounter.

Of course, now they nerfed sustained supression insanely hard. In my reading (and in game experience) it was not that broken, effectively becoming a free full auto shot at the start of combat. Its as if the writers of the errata think that overwatch is not exited when the shot is fired (which, by RAW, it is, in other words, even with sustained supression, you are only getting off one shot before you exit overwatch, which is a full round to activate anyway)

KommissarK said:

1. Has it been confirmed that every Fate Point restores Cohesion, not just a FP spent solely for doing so?

2. On Tactical Expertise, you are right, it does create a problem. However I didn't say that I am running it this way or suggest it should be run this way; instead it's the direction in which my mind is travelling. Part of the problem is that I see my kill-team almost always using Lead By Example. The "One re-roll per round" is just too good. But that's just part of it.

As I said, in my interpretation codex abilities should be the norm, apart from "growing together as a team". I want each kill-team to be able to form its own unique blend of chapter abilities that every member can use. From a game designer's perspective it makes sense too... it would allow each round of gamers to create their own unique team/blend.

Not sayyng all of it has been fully thought through. :-)

Alex

Okay this is how I'm reading this:

1. Based on the last sentence of the Oath-Taking section of Page 228, a Kill Team has access to their leader's Chapter Squad Mode Abilities, so they can freely use or activate it, and they benefit from it.

2. Any Astartes of any Chapter has their individual Chapter's Squad Mode Abilities and they can spend the cohesion of their squad to activate such abilities. But only members of that specific Chapter may benefit from it.

3. Any Tactical Marine with Tactical Expertise, who does not need to be the leader by the way, can share his Chapter-Specific Squad mode Abilities provided he passes his Command test.

Anything wrong with how I read things, because this is how I plan to run it. This makes the selection of the leader more crucial and interesting now that Chapter and not just specialty/oaths come into play.

This makes the the Tac Marine still a worthy option and does not limit him to being the de-facto leader.

Opinions? Counter-points?

scottpilgrrim said:

1. No that has been clarified in the forums to be wrong. Check out for example the errata of page 219. Chapter abilities of the leader cannot be used freely.

2. Correct.

3. Correct. I assume if he fails, Cohesion can be spent again to try anew.

Alex

Scott;

That's exactly how we interpreted the rules. It seemed to make sense for all of the reasons that you state and more. It is the way that we will continue to use the rules, as there is then some motivation to put others in charge of the kill team so as to use their Patterns if they are mission appropriate. It fits the game excellently.

However: That's not actually the way it's 'supposed' to work, according to the errata. You are correct on points 2 and 3. however, oath-taking merely enables the Kill Team's use of oath-specific patterns. It does *not* enable the Team to use the leader's Chapter specific patterns.

Once again, I'm struggling to comprehend why the errata'ed solution moves away from a stated design goal.

Kommisar;

The Tac marine wouldn't gain any benefit himself. Instead it would allow the entire squad to use his Chapter specific patterns, in addition to the leader's. That's handy if your leader's Chapter patterns aren't appropriate for the situation, but your tac marine's Chapter pattern is. Thus it doesn't do the Tac Marine much good, but it helps the rest of the party.

I don't think it's much of a 'problem' that a PC's ability doesn't help them, merely others. It happens in games all of the while. eg: buffing the tank.

It seems bizarre that a 'squad mode' ability is of no actual use to the squad as a whole. Unless you have a tactical marine with the ability. 'We're together as a squad, working as a team, so I can go and do things the way my chapter does them, using their tactics. I'm still acting as part of the team, but you guys gain nothing'. One would argue that's not very 'team mode'!

Once again, I have read and comprehend the rules and errata and am aware that Cohesion is replaced. However, I am unsure where the idea comes from that 1FP spent in any manner adds to Cohesion. One CAN spend a FP to add a point of Cohesion, but it is not as far as I have read anywhere in the rules a 'freebie' that happens when FPs are spent for something else. That would also seem to make no sense from a game design viewpoint..

Alex;

The UM LEad By Example is blisteringly good. But then it's probably not the best EVERY time. I certainly think that -if there was scope for the leader's abilities to be used by the team- there is still good reason to sometimes change team-leaders out so as to use a more appropriate squad mode ability for the scenario: Say the DA one in defensive operations, or the BT one when facing psykers/demons. I imagine that as more Chapters are released more 'niche' Patterns will emerge that it would be nice for the whole team to be able to use without brow-beating members into being Tactical Marines.

Regarding the back banner; it seems an amazingly poor choice. FPs are seldom frittered for a mere 1CP in my experience, and are used for things like dodging genestealers or getting 1d10W back. If a PC has a surplus of them and the ability that allows the spending of a FP to refresh CPs equal to Fel modifier then it might be worth buying them a back banner... but it's still quite a lot of Requisition Points for not much of a gain.

Well my point about tac marines is that if your ruling is in place, and they take tac expertise, they are effectively hurting themselves in options. Tac marines are in a position of being fairly good options for squad leaders (good fellowship/command skills/oath options), but your ruling is negating the usefullness of tac expertise. In other words, a tac marine would always be better off taking bolter expertise in that system, as they would have more options. Effectively, it steals the spotlight from them, as tac expertise becomes useless when they are squad leader, so your analogy of "buffing a tank" is not effective, as its more of a "give the player some buff abilities, but for certain players, remove some abilities to give the new buff"

Currently, squad leaders are picked for 3 reasons:

1. Starting cohesion pool

2. Oath options

3. RP leadership needs

I feel that this is sufficient for squad leader selection, and that chapter mode ability does not need to be another factor.

On the FP/CP argument, as I said, its fairly murky, you make the mistake of making a hard ruling in one direction without consideration of the other side.

Read p. 204, it makes no mention of using a FP to regain a CP, in other words, that alone is not a specific use of a FP (and I didn't see it in the errata)

Read p.212, all it says is that 1 cp will be regained if "Any member of the kill-team spends a fate point", this is murky, in that it does not state if it is a specific use, or any time a fate point is used, I see it either way, but rule for now in my game that it is any time a fate point is used.

Read p.171, it states "when the kill-team's leader spends a fate point to restore a point of cohesion", tends towards the specific use of a FP side, but I still rule it the other way in my games, as I feel it fits the theme of DW better, and makes the back banner a reasonable purchase.

The removal of any cap on CP would seem to favor the regain CP after any FP side as otherwise it would seem to be a non issue, with how little CP would ever be restored.

EDIT: Also, just because a squad mode ability is only affecting one character, does not mean that it does not benefit the squad. In my previous posts example, consider the dark angel's sustain supression ability. Much of your opinion on this seems based in the idea that a "squad" ability is only such if each member is specifically able to gain a mechanical benefit from the ability. I would argue this is not always the case, and that a bigger picture, "this is going to help that one marine, which helps all of us," is more important. In the current system it would be like a dark angel suggesting he implement his chapter's doctrine on overwatch (although he can't really on the fly provide insight unless he has tac expertise), and the squad leader agreeing that that is a wise decision.

Can someone please point out the forum discussion on the matter, because the errata, I think, just clarified something.

The errata quotes "Depending on the Squad Leader's Specialty, he will have access to a selection of the Codex abilities which his Kill-Team may then use during the course of the mission." which by my reading, only points to a correlation between specialty and codex abilities. The Chapter abilities are not Codex, and by that last sentence on Oath-Taking, the Kill-Team still has access to their Leader's Chapter abilities by virtue that a) He is their leader, and b) Chapter abilities are based on the Leader's Chapter, not specialty.

This gives Tactical Marines a great deal of versatility, as they have access to many oaths, and therefore a large amount of codex abilities. Further more, outside of being the leader, he may be able to share his Chapter abilities if he picks Tactical Expertise. So if an Assault Marine is needed to lead because of his particular oath, squad mode, or chapter abilities, our UM tactical marine with Tac Exp cans still Lead by Example (possibly by him taking charge of the situation as a second-in-command.)

Or if a Devastator marine gets picked as the leader, then the Space Wolf tac marine can use Tac Exp to boost his melee ability as well as those of the other assault marines/melee specialists.

ak-73 said:

This one was news to me. I had to check the fate section, and there was no "recover one point of cohesion" under the ways to use a fate point. That would suggest one cohesion is recovered every time someone spends a fate point (which the text in the 'recovering lost cohesion' section pretty much says). Very interesting! I have to tell my group about that one. Even though it helps having a smurf in the group who can recover cohesion every session (We even had two smurfs before, that was pretty insane. But we didn't know we could exeed the starting pool, so it would probably be more powerful then.)

BrotharTearer said:

Just posted the question to FFG. About time this gets clarified.

Alex

@Scott

The thing still is that if a tac marine is squad leader (and the idea that he confers his chapter abilities to squad is in place), then 100% of the time, a tac marine is better off having bolter mastery than tactical expertise. Considering that tac marines make excellent squad leaders due to their access to good fel advances, and early command skills, it is quite likely that a tac marine will almost always be squad leader (as they have a broad selection of available oaths, and some of the "good ones"). Therefore, tactical expertise would almost become a poor decision for a player looking to build "the perfect" squad leader, as he would just assume that the squad would have access to his chapter pattern, and therefore he could take bolter mastery (and quite possibly use it actively, while in solo mode, while the squad uses his chapters squad mode patterns). This seems to be against the intent of the writing (a "perfect squad leader" would be better described as having tac expertise than bolter mastery)

Also note that nowhere in that book does it say that just because they have "access" to it, that they can "benefit from" the ability. The book is very specific that chapter patterns only benefit members of that chapter. Alright, so the dark angel activates holy vengeance, only the BTs in the squad (like the squad leader) can benefit from it. Even then though, that would not be allowed as that pushes the activation action onto invalid marines.

This has been clarified in emails from Ross, and now in the errata. Check the old FAQ thread, its deep in there somewhere. The wording on p.228 is incorrect . The patterns available to any individual marine = codex patterns from selected oath + individual marine's chapter patterns.

On the cp/fp thing, yeah, that'll be cool to hear ak. Sorry for bringing it up, but I have never heard a proper clarification on the matter (and it would be a big deal either way, and the rules are kind of ambiguous on the topic).