Adeptus-B said:

We mentioned it before, we're just too bull headed to give up

And nice slight against the people that aren't pissed about the change as being focused on the cool and not commited to canon. First, you can agree with the change for reasons other than 'coolness', and second, if you view FFG's writing as canon in the least, this brave new world is canon. But that argument won't go anywhere either...

Adeptus-B said:

What? It's not that thread? I thought the core of contention was -talk of guns aside- essentially that SoBs should be just as awesome as Astartes.

Who says the bolters don't need to have a kick because they use a ramjet propulsion system? What's wrong with a standard charge firing the bolt at a standard muzzle velocity for a real bullet, then the rocket system accelerating it even faster so it hits at 2x3 times the normal muzzle velocity?

Lets assume the Battle Sisters have equal quality gear to the Space Marines. I'm sick of arguing about that, and to equip 30,000 women like that really doesn't strike me as inappropriate any more. I have never associated size with quality, or damage with quality. Take, for example, a masterfully crafted, and elegantly balanced dagger, 8 inches of tungsten steel, razor sharp. Then look a a German Zweihander, with perhaps a lower amount of craftsmanship, though still not shoddy.

The dagger can kill a man in one thrust, but the Zweihander can cut him in half.

The Space Marines can do more damage, and still have an equal weapon, because equal doesn't mean identical. What is the real issue here? Do SoB players think Space Marines are too good? What is actually WRONG with Marines having plus sized weapons? Which Black Library actively promotes. If I'm the commander (Or the Emperor) and I have a superhuman warrior, I'm going to scale his weapon up (Yes, damage included, some extra armor is fine, the entirety of it is dumb). If not, why bother with Space Marines? they take far too long to train and cost too much to equip and arm otherwise. Multi-decade training process? Hundreds of thousands of Throne Gelt in just his gear and expendables? Uhhh, no, I'll take 100 guardsmen with carapace armor and hellguns instead. (Assuming the SM gets 7 armor and 1d10+5 damage, to be equal to a Sister of Battle) Bollocks to "Extended actions". weight of numbers will ensure the company of guardsmen can take down whatever the Marines might have to face.

Marines were originally intended to fight things that humans couldn't. Megarachnids, orks, eldar, basically, all sorts of mostrosities. They were NOT intended to be normal people with the capacity to fight for extended periods of time. (though that is ALSO in their job description). They are supposed to be stronger, faster, tougher, and a mere +10 to their stats is BS as an explanation. No one has come up with a better system that makes the marines worth their price tag than the unnatural stats system. BTW, my starting Techpriest is as tough as his flak armor, and can get to RIDICULOUS TB as well. (better than Powered Armor in the end, also.)

All I can come up with is that people get hurt that the Marines are combat machines, and, well...

By the way, where does this 7' tall thing come from? I'm 6'7" and I'm hardly of superhuman stature.

Fenrisnorth said:

I think it's because the FFG fluff is essentially a retcon of prior codexes.

Fenrisnorth said:

Again, it's not really aimed at the SM's being tough, I think it's aimed at the SM's being SO tough it's essentially a nerf of other classes to the point that it's harder for them to compete at all, which is essentially a retcon. I don't think anyone has said Sisters should be equal to a Marine, just that they should be capable of dishing out the same damage as the (other, prior) books say they get the same weapons. The thread title is a question that's the same that we've had before, why are these boltguns better? The answer is because FFG felt it portrayed the Marines the way they wanted them portrayed, and that it fit ther system. I seriously doubt it was to piss off people that loved the SoB or the older codexes.

Fenrisnorth said:

ROFL!

Fenrisnorth said:

The more recent version of Space Marines simply have them tall by Imperial Standards, they don't reach hulking stature until the put their PA on, which is also the same thing that happens to average heighted folk.

If you want to be superhuman in sature, do enough steroids to lose your neck and put on a suit of Power Armor ;-)

Yeah, but SMs being just a little tougher, isn't going to make them a worthwhile investment. Just crunching the numbers, a 1d10+5 Pen 4 Boltgun would not be enough better than a 1d10+4 Pen 3 weapon to bother with the expense. You make a supersoldier, you want him to have a good weapon. I think that DH heavy bolters should be like 3d10+6 damage or something.

Charmander said:

It's a decrease of granularity in the universe, and one that fits well with everything marines are supposed to represent, to my mind. I never liked the idea that guard bolt pistols were as good as astartes kit, so it fits my imagining of the universe just fine. I don't really see it as a retcon in any major way. Not in any meaningful way that's been demonstrated to me at least, aside from conflicting with a single sentence in a SoB codex. After all: Every new piece of canon at least partly stamps on an older piece. There is seldom a smooth agreement between old and new.

I don't think it's fair either to say that marines in *their* game are 'too good'. It's a game about Marines, and comparing stats in another game is always going to be thin ice, because the games were never particularly designed to mesh fully. It's a bit like looking at 3.5 wizards from the perspective of a Spycraft character!

Fenrisnorth said:

Right, though Unnatural Toughness and Body AP 10 I'd say is more than 'a little' tougher

The problem is that in order to do this you have to rocket past the power level of the old, established boltgun stats, and it makes people go 'wait, what?' To me, the DH bolt weapons are underpowered, and the DW versions are, a little overpowered. I kind of like that FFG allowed my lower level characters to use an iconic gun and then gives me a Space Marine that can actually deal with hordes (which most Ascension level folks cannot do), but the discrepancy kind of goes against non-FFG written material.

Siranui said:

Prior to FFG, I don't think I've seen anything that differntiates classes of bolter to the degree FFG does with DH and DW. From TT stats to novels they never talk about the innate superiority of the Astartes bolter is specific. Bolters were talked about as simply bolters. To come along and declare that Astartes weapons are roughly 2x as effective as everyone else in the galaxy is a fairly significant change. In your mind you may have viewed astartes of having better guns, in my mind they were just better soldiers. "Better Soldiers" doesn't translate all that well into an RPG though with finite stat blocks, which is why overall I think the increase in damage works okay.

Siranui said:

That would be true if FFG didn't advertise and let the systems be compatible and they didn't take place in the same universe. Many of the people that don't particularly like this change have said as much, that the games aren't really compatible (I think it works, I think it just needs TLC in order to make it work for a given campaign). It's like White Wolf claiming all their games are compatible- the rules work together, but they're not particularly balanced with each other.

Charmander said:

The TT marines are way out of whack with novel marines and have been for over a decade. Obviously, it would make a bad TT game if a squad of marines was balanced to take out 100 orcs (and it wouldn't sell enough orc minis!), so we'll always have this descrepency, so long as the fluff portrays them as super-soldiers. I personally prefer 'novel marines' to guys who are only a tiny bit better than Imperial Guard, so I'm all for the new material. I'm all for that decrease in granularity that actually says: Y'know what: space marines shouldn't really need three shots to drop a normal unarmoured human.

I'm not sure that cross-compatibility is something that has been heavily stressed by FFG, any more than WW did. The default setting is clearly for the games *not* to be used side-by-side, though. Your example is a good one, in that in both games you *can* cross-systems, but if you or your players are sticklers for this mythical thing called 'balance', or view 'balance' to be purely based on combat ability, or expect the systems to perfectly mesh, then they'll not like the way the systems interact. The systems sharing the same universe is great for sharing source books and background material, but I think that's about as far as it should go, really. I don't have any plans to run a 'RT meets DH meets DW' game, because I think that -mechanically- it would be like watching a freeway pile-up.

Has anyone tried making bolters 2d10 ie identical to the angelus bolt gun and then giving all marines mighty shot. it seems absurd to me that a rank 1 scum from the metallican hive can be better at shooting weak spots of an enemy than a rank 8 300 year old assault marine any way.

and it has the bonus's of

1. reducing the crippling power of the bolter,

2. staying in line with previously printed book

3. makes the better damage a quality of the marine rather than the weapon

2d10 is not statistically different then 1d10+5 on an average standpoint. It also has the chance to be much crappier, 2 damage, or much better, 20.

There is no realistic reason for the Marines' boltguns to be 100% identical to those produced for human use. Even manufactured to the same quality, using the same materials, the Marines' bolters can be bigger, and sometimes, bigger is better. More explosive, more shrapnel, even just a wider, or longer slug punching through someone. I have yet to find a current resource for the size of various armaments, but, all things considered, Boltguns should be lethal armaments, and 2d10, or even 1d0+5 aren't patently lethal, heck 1d10+5 CAN'T oneshot anyone who has bought sound constitution a few times (talking DH here).

As far as I'm concerned, the problem isn't Space Marine bolters are too good, it's that Dark Heresy Bolters are too easy to get, and aren't good enough.

People want a biggass gun? get a Best quality Autogun, with Manstopper rounds. If you nerf the Space Marine's boltgun, you need to nerf the Space Marine, so he can be hurt by Chaos Boltguns. If you nerf the Space Marine, they aren't better than human anymore, and you've got a IG Stormtrooper instead.

Siranui said:

I agree, and you have to buff them to get the proper portrayal if you ask me, but can you see how it would sting some when the SM book doesn't just come out with strong marines, that it essentially comes out and nerfs other 'classes' if you will? I've not seen anyone say the guardsman wouldn't be squishier than the marine, just that it makes no logical sense as to why they can't fire the same weapon- and TBH I don't see why not, provided you make reasonable pre-reqs for the gun to prevent balance issues. Most of the complaints on UT and the like stem from trying to explain the why of the bolter damage increase (the argument that they had to increase the bolter damage so that it could hurt someone with a damage reduction of 18).

Therein lies the problem with 40k fluff, is its wide and varied interpretation, which is also the core of the reason why I say "this is FFG's 40k, and houserules are easy to do if you're not a fan of what they did" That's honestly where I think the discussion of the bolter damage has real merit and potential rather than us debating the physics of contradictory universe.

Narkasis Broon said:

What do you mean by that? The R1 Scum will likely have a BS 10 or more below the marine, won't have the 500+ thrones to buy the boltgun, and won't have the level to buy the weapon proficiency, and your rank 8 assault marine will clean the floor the scum's corpse in a stand up fight.

Fenrisnorth said:

True, though the second die increases your RF chance by 8% here at the cost of your wider damage range. This was the problem I always saw with the DH heavy bolter though - the primary benefit of it being autofire, the secondary was a pretty mild potential to do more damage.

Fenrisnorth said:

Which I think is a very fair assesment. This doesn't create the problem however in DH - by leaving the bolt damage relatively low you don't break the balance of the game, and in addition you allow a wide array of people to get their hands on the iconic imperial weapon which everyone wants. I liked playing in DH and toting around my boltgun with ridiculously expensive ammo, it made me feel empowered, even though I wasn't significantly more powerful than other characters in the party. DW comes along however and casts that whole theme in different light.

As for SM bolters being too goo, I'd say they are a bit too good within their own system because they outclass just about every other weapon you can get. I don't like the idea of wholesale reduction (like removing a d10, as some have suggested), but tweaks and mild reductions I'm all about.

I agree that is a cool image, but a bolter needs to be hearty enough to stand up to the worst the galaxy has to offer. IMO 1d10+5 just doesn't cut it. A bolt wound isn't something a person walks away from, except perhaps if it catches them in the hand and "merely" blows off the arm below the elbow. (And I couldn't walk away from that) it's not really a weapon designed to fight humans, except as a psychological overkill weapon. It's there to blow Plaguebearers, Orks, Hrud, Tyranid Warriors, and other Marines apart. I'm not catagorically opposed to non Marines using them, (though tripod mounting them or using Powered armor is a suggested requirement.) but to claim that stuff in DW was artificially inflated to compensate for bolter damage is not a valid argument. The stuff in DW is supposed to be that badass, because otherwise the Inquisitorial Stormtroopers could handle it. Bolters are powerful because their targets are super tough, not the other way around.

And before I get called a rabid powergaming SM fanboi, my RT and DH characters are both techpriests with their worst stats in WS and BS. Hell, my RT character is actively a coward! It's not all about who gets the biggest numbers in combat, but by the Emperor, let the Marines do their job, and do it right. Their armaments are part and parcel of their awesomeness. Not all of it, a marine armed with a plastic spork is still deadly; but it is important.

Charmander said:

I think what he/she means is that fluff-wise "Mighty Shot" represents "shooting the weak points in enemy armour" and it seems strange that a rank-1 scum can buy it but a rank-8 assault marine can't.

The problem with this logic, of course is that you wind up having to give Marines pretty much *everything* for free, because they're, well, super-soldiers.

Chastity said:

Ah, I see. While your argument is actually on target with what the argument is in theory about and you have to have an advancement table of some kind, I can't help but say that Scum don't get MS until Rank 6, though they do get deadeye shot sharpshooter at 4 and 5.

by inquisitors handbook scum from a metallican hive (gunmetal city) can take the metallican gunslinger alternate package at rank one which includes mighty shot, hence my "rank 1 scum from a metallican hive" crack

Narkasis Broon said:

Well that makes more sense for sure- that seems wierd even within the DH system tho, regular folk it's a rank 6 advance but oh wait they're gunslingers, which is also the dominant style of fighting in the RPG, so let's give them a +2 to all ranged damage at rank 1...

Yeah: gunslingers are a bit good, basically. I don't think they should be used as a 'typical' example of over-all balance and skill-level in DH.

I feel that FFG designers had a bit of a tricky situation on their hands. They could either give starting marines a butt-ton of talents like mighty shot to represent their training - in which case there'd be less to spend XP on and even more complaints about 'not enough killy stuff to buy', or they could make marines suitably good at rank 1 simply by equipping them well, and still leaving a lot of scope for character improvement. Or they could have just made marines that kinda sucked and weren't as good as Rank 8 DH characters.

Given those options, I think the best path was chosen.

Charmander said:

Exactly my opinion.

With reguard to the argument that Space Marines in the novels being devastatingly powerful, if we ignore the obvious "dramatic liscense" (keep in mind that Caiphus Cain kills Chaos Space Marines with a laspistol ), there is still the fact that nearly all of the characters in the novels are grizzled veterans and not (in Deathwatch terms) "first level characters", and a lot of their damage potential can be assumed to be a product of their accumulated combat skills, and not just a result of the minimum firepower of their weapons.

Adeptus-B said:

In a novel I 100% agree here; I think you get into trouble in RPGs as gun damage tends to be static (as opposed to melee damage which seems to get more damage boosting buffs for whatever reason) and you get the whole wounds and hit points problem. Accuracy in most systems doesn't seem to significantly help you in most systems (or it helps too much and people go around doing nothing but flying headshots), probably because accuracy is so effed up in RPGs to start with- but I admit I've never really put that much thought to it.

Now that I think of it, you could potentially work the bonus inside of Astartes Weapon Proficiencies- not only skill in the heavier boltgun or what have you (if you even keep boltguns that size), but you say '+d10 when firing astartes pattern weapon of type x.' Then the astartes boltgun would do 1d10+5 in the hands of a 'mortal' and 2d10+5 in the hands of a marine. Those numbers need not be exact, but you get general idea and might make a tolerable house rule for someone. Then on the surface the weapons aren't that much different, it's really the skill of the operator that packs the extra punch.

Personally I prefer the slight nerf to bolt weapons and a slight buff to DH weapons to bridge the gap a little better, but that's just me...

I feel compelled to throw the thrones in a black hole here but:

Space Marine Boltgun

Str: 5 AP: 4

Imperial Guard Seargent's (or hell, even a Comissars) Boltgun

Str: 5 AP: 4

Take it as you will, I play both IG and SM on the TT. So, yea on the TT there is no difference....take it as you will.

-J

And according to TT, all normal marines have exactly the same S, T, BS, WS, et al. ergo they should all be the same in the RPG.

Plus: in TT half a dozen IG are more than a match for a single SM.

Except it doesn't work like that. TT has a much courser granularity, and translations from it don't work.

My personal view on this, is that development went like this.

"So, Space marines use bolters, but they all have unnatural toughness, and will be dealing with monsters with unnatural toughness, so we need to up the damage. What damage does a bolter do? 1D10 +5 w/ tearing? ok, we'll make it 2D10" and then justified it with the fact that space marine bolters fire a larger caliber round (1 as opposed to the .75 in Dark heresy supposedly).

What I think they should have done, is just given all bolt weapons Felling, and then increased the static modifier on the space marine guns to represent the larger caliber. So a "regular" bolter would do 1D10+5X Pen 4, tearing, felling. A space marine bolter would do 1D10+8X Pen 5 tearing felling. This also gets across that bolters are practically designed for taking out the super tough foes, and do so by detonating once inside the body, mitigating their unnatural toughness to a degree.

In application, this would essentially have most Space Marines hit with a bolter soak 4 less damage/hit, and take 3 less damage per hit (average of 1D10 is a 6 for this, based on RF possibility.) on average. Which, ultimately means that there is actually a gain of 1 damage / hit on average. RF is a bit less crazy, and it also becomes slightly more plausible for space marines with bolters to handle things with high toughness and unnatural toughness 3.

The GM has made this change to a Dark heresy game I'm in, and the only reason I haven't done it in my deathwatch game is that I am trying to keep things as close to by the book as possible. But, ultimately, I feel adding felling and reducing a die of damage does a better job conveying just how powerful a bolter can be, while simultaneously not making it a god weapon against a normal dude.

That's a really good idea !

Plus the Astartes bolter still would do its job against a normal dude (I mean, 1d10+8 Pen 5 Tearing isn't exactly ridiculous, what's more when you get to shooting 4 of these...).

There is a slight cost to adding felling, and it's that the boltgun is the baseline weapon for all marines in DW, and as such the GM will need to quite regularly check and double check the toughness modifier of enemies to apply the proper one. A minor cost on paper, I'd be interested to know how it plays out in 'reality.'

The only other thing I'd say is just check your motivaton- only modify the rules to fit the game you want. If your crossing over the game lines it makes sense, or if you're looking to change the game to fit the setting you want. I would avoid modifying it if your game is working as is

So far it is working out ok in the Dark Heresy game. But the bolter isn't as common on our Inquisitorial team as it is in Deathwatch.

My deathwatch game is going just fine. To handle the Sister that is joining, I'm just going to give her a gun that fires Space Marine caliber bolt rounds, and if she tries firing it out of her power-armor, it will shatter her arm. Sister power armor has an auto-stabilizer for a reason.