ak-73 said:

Compliments for the attempt, but I don't think that will make many people happy, instead being regarded as slightly too powerful for DH* whilst simultaneously still not holding up to the DW gear, whose disparity unnecessarily adds to those differences in character viability that already existed as per GW's original background (though they may have been necessary due to how Unnatural stats work). Furthermore, this would only affect Sororitas gear, leaving Guardsmen and Inquisitors shafted.

In both games, we already have two distinct sets of mechanics, and both games focus on a different narrative style / level of heroics, so, given this topic's title and the question of crossovers, the natural solution to the problem would seem to be to simply have any and all equipment adapt to the ruleset / game type you want to use. Just like the upcoming Daemon Hunter supplement will have the same characters employ different psyker rules depending on where you use them (and probably more, but this is the only bit that has been announced so far).

Aside from allowing non-Marines to be slightly more useful in DW games (at least concerning ranged combat), this would also fit much better to the Astartes gear that has already shown up in DH.

(*: Sidenote - At least for rank 1 characters, though you could say any bolt weapon is too powerful there unless everybody gets comparative gear. If we were to go by internal consistency, I would otherwise recommend +6, as this is the stat for the Sacristan, which is supposedly the GD's pistol cousin.)

Lynata said:

"Have you ever trained with a firearm in real life? Bracing such a weapon on your shoulder is the only way to properly "soak" recoil. Firing something out of your hip is actually quite mad and crazy, and I've seen a US soldier dislocate a joint because he shot a German G3 (which happens to have considerably more recoil than an M16) from his hip during a combined forces event".

I agree.

When I qualiifed on the FN Minimi light machine gun (I think the americans call it an M249 SAW) we had some ammo left at the end of the course (okay by little I mean a couple of thousand rounds) so we all had a little play to demonstrate how ineffective hip shooting is. Now I'm a big strong guy and can handle the recoil just fine, but did I hit anything from the hip? Nope, not even close. Even in short bursts half my rounds were impacting 75m up range and the rest were all over the place. Hip shooting might work at close quarter combat distances, but nothing else. Put the weapon to the sholder, and what do you know, rounds on target (more or less).

I actually have a little buit of a problem with the full auto +20% bonus pqast short range if anything. At short range full auto is great, but over that it is only really good for surpressing or enfilade (spelling?) fire where you hose down an area to create a kill zone rather than a specific target, or for large targets like buildings and vehicles. Much better to squeeze of aimed shots or short controlled bursts than full auto if you want ot hit the heretics. (I am aware that there are some great new weapons with awesome recoil surpression built in to the design but they are few and far between).

Get some.

Zakalwe said:

I assume this is to ensure that out of the many rounds fired by the weapon at least one or two hit the target. Some people have swapped this bonus around with the one from the semi-auto burst, though. I'm not entirely sure which I would prefer - I can see it being not very realistic, but on the other hand it makes for a more enjoyable game. If you burn through your ammo as quickly as the dedicated heavy weapons people do, you'd likely want to have at least 20% of your shots hit something.

Or this simply means that the weapons of the 41st millennium have less recoil than we commonly assume. If you have a heavy bolter and its rocket-propelled projectiles leave visible traces and the gun doesn't jump too much (both due to its own weight as well as the first-stage ignition not exerting much force), you could probably "pull" the burst towards your target as you aim by your traces.

Now that I think of it - did anyone notice that boltguns lack stocks? How can their recoil be so strong when people don't even brace them against their shoulders - or even fire them with a single hand (given that bolt pistols use the exact same ammunition)?

Zakalwe said:

Speaking of which,

Oh, and in one scene, the guy fires an AA-12 single-handedly. And then dual-wields two of them, just to top it off.

Thanks Lynata, I have seen this, I think you have posted it before. Someone did anyway. He's a funny guy, all like "Ya, AA12 best gun in World", you should see the video he did with the X-Box. AA12 is a scary weapon, they should apply the design to 7.62, now that would be awesome. There's a new SMG that has similar recoil but I don't know what it is callled.

So I can't see why bolters need to have massive recoil. After today they have something like thirty thousand years give or take a few to figure it out. Up to the individuals in their own games I guess, because an RPG is not colour by numbers, you may colour it any way you want.

My GM hasn't gone for any of my house rule suggestions so far so I'm probably not even going to bring up the full auto; after all it works for me because it is letting me kill A LOT of heretics. Orthlak MkIV Thollos anyone? D10 +4 full auto with manstoppers & mighty shot = small globby pieces of Pilgrims of Hayte all over the room unnatural toughness or not ( the firepower of an armageddon pattern autogun in one hand, big sharp pointy mono thing in the other, oh yeah).

And without a stock a basic weapon is just a big pistol and without a targetter wouldn't hit diddly squat beyond short range. Oops, I said 'squat' arrgh they're coming through the door already, No! I didn't mean those squ...

Cheers.

Lynata said:

Well, that was partially the point. We have this spread between DH and DW and I -and possibly others- seek to maintain it. If we want to drop the SoBs based on the last codex in their, we'll have to give them bolters which are bear Astartes grade. Almost like the real deal but not quite. This is what the stats do.

Conversely if you don't place a caveat on them, every Rank 3 Acolyte will try to get their hands on them because they are so über in DH terms. Therefore you need to require a special training to use ((without stiff penalty) these Bolt weapons which I am going to consider oversize but again not so much that the Astartes weapons rule apply. The SoB are trained then in the use of these larger than usual Bolt weapons, Inquisitors can buy this training too (of course). Guardsmen... only at high ranks.

Lynata said:

The stats suggested indeed do fit my interpretation of the SoB in DW. However I could see them being used in a RT game too, which means it also fits DH Ascension campaigns. It only is too powerful for DH beginning ranks but then again that is nothing young Acolytes can get their hands on either.

Alex

Not quoting any specific cannon just going on memory here:

On most army lists Soritas are more or less streamlined marines ( Same BS, T and weapons ) BUT they are not marines, they have different special rules, mindset, abilities and army lists.

On any RPG, I'd say they are normal humans ( 2d10 + 20/25 ) with exceptional gear ( non-astartes powered armor, bolters, chainswords, many many flamers and other high-end stuff ) but not Astares quality stuff. Exception on the lifetime of a powered armor since it's ridiculous that an army needs to powerdown every few hours to recharge batteries.

Beeing trained and assigned special weapons/armor + all the faith stuff will make the soritas very powerfull and a cut above the rest of standart troops, just keep in mind they are not Marines with all the extra organs.

OFC this is all a generic view, a specific Guardsman PC or a powerfull Villain will usually break all canon have his own special gear kit. BUT standart Soritas vs standart line soldier of any race is not usually a "fair" fight.

Isidro

isidro said:

They have a T of 3. Statwise Sisters are Guardmen with a 3+ armour save and BS4 and better Ld.

You heare that Lynata? PUNY, PUNY GUARDSMEN.

ak-73 said:

Of course I understand that many people will want to preserve this new disparity, however then we could just as well leave the guns how they are now. Unnatural stats and Marine-unique abilities are already so uber-powerful that any non-Astartes character in a DW game can use any help they can get, this includes comparative equipment. And all this keeping in mind that there would still be a massive difference in their armour. Even if you "buff" the Angel-pattern's AP a bit to get closer to the actual Codex description.

Naturally, interpretations will differ, but the Codex seems clear in pointing out that their equipment is absolutely capable of holding up with Astartes stuff - so in the end, either one could go with what GW says or with the the weaker FFG variant; there's no point in taking something "in the middle" that outgears anything in DH but still fails to do the job in DW. There's an idiom in German that comes to mind, though I don't think it has a direct translation - but it goes something like "nothing half, nothing whole" or "neither one thing nor another".

All this keeping in mind that DW's basic mechanics clearly suggest that the game is supposed to run "out of the league" of DH and RT. That said, even in DH their gear does not quite hold up to what studio canon says - on the other hand the designers wanted to make it accessible at rank 1, where it is already somewhat overpowered. I do see the tight spot the writers were in, and it just reinforces my opinion that the SoB have been implemented too early.

Of course, one's mileage may vary, but considering all the other special perks and talents and mechanics the Marines get, I do not think it is actually necessary to bend canon to make other careers suck even more alongside them.

Bogi: Ohh I know, I know - I had a squad of Sisters get wiped out in close combat by those "puny" Guardsmen. **** those trees and their "Charge" doctrine!

But yes, the TT stats fit their description in GW canon. Normal human toughness and strength, Marine equivalent equipment.

Lynata said:

The first question is: where do the majority of gamers see the SoB in 40K RP? I would say most people would see them in power level above a normal guardsman and below an Astartes. Thus more comparable to a Stormtrooper rather. They are pretty much as Elite as you can get without having the Emperor's blood running through your veins.

Lynata said:

Holding up with Astartes stuff is sufficiently vague though. But let's reverse engineer the TT stats from the suggested 40K RP stats? Would you rather assign S3 or S4 to a 1d10+7 Bolter (bearing in mind that the new Bolter stats in DW are 1d19+9)? That's what I mean with sufficiently vague. Even if you'd assign S3, one could then assign 1d10+8 and you'd logically have to equate that to S4 and it'd still be not as good as the Astartes Bolter. (Of course you'd also assign 1d10+10 ).

The TT stats leave room for interpretation. In fact, deriving RPG stats from them necessitates interpretation. My personal interpretation is that that the sisters should be hitting hard but not as hard as the 40K SMs (=Sue Marys). I am fine if they are devastating in DH, capable in RT and a bit too weak in DW.

That power level also makes them most flexible. They need some nerf if you want them in low-level DH, they are okay for RT and they need a boost for DW.

(Let me just add that with Mighty Shot and that Bolter, they'll be pretty much as devastating as an Astartes Apothecary or Librarian with his Bolter (1d10+9).

Lynata said:

You mean "Das Glas ist halb-leer"? Oder "Weder Fisch noch Fleisch"? Ah, nein. You mean "Nichts Halbes und nichts Ganzes." (Yo, I am German.)
Well, that's the fate of the power level I have in mind here. It is best suited for RT but can be tweaked towards either end.

Lynata said:

Every medium has its own canon. I guess that is the point. The needs of a video game are different from a tabletop or a novel - or a movie. The Ultramarines movie broke canon in a number of ways; perhaps the makers were convinced it had to be done.

In the case of 40K RP... like I said, it calls for an interpretation. That interpretation is free from the constraints that 40K most adhere to but comes with its own constraints.

And interpretations are always a matter of taste. Considering that it's a boy's hobby, I wouldn't be too surprised to see other careers suck next to the Astartes. Wish fulfillment and all that.

Lynata said:

And how is having the same ROF as an Astartes Bolter but having 1d10+7 damage only not Marine equivalent equipment? It's certainly not middle ground but closer to the Astartes Bolter (which probably would have to be considered S3 in 40k TT) than the DH one. I have been assigning damage with that in mind.

You know, maybe I can get to the heart of the matter, Lynata: I think it's probably hard for many gamers, including myself, to imagine how the holy relics that 210cm tall guys with Unnatural Strength wield do not a single point more damage than the holy relics of what? 175cm or 180cm tall women (without Unnatural Strength).
Personally I think that is the problem. Many people associate with the size and strength of the Marines that they should be able to wield patterns that do at least some more damage.

With the suggested stats I have been trying to reconcile this personal feeling with studio canon saying that the SoBs Bolter are MEQ. And I have been adding the special training caveat to prevent every 2nd DH PC from running around with a GD Bolter, preserving the special standing of the SoB along the way (because they all get that training). Guards higher-ups and Inquisitors may have the training too. May.

Just my outlook on the matter.

Alex

Lynata said:

You forgot the flamer as well; Yeah, close-order drill+season warrirors=badass melee Guardsmen..Too bad they scrapped the Regimental doctrines in 5th since you know, the Guard is so versatile and diffrent that every Regiment works the same now.

The thing is, again to me, odd; Granted, all 3 games are in the same universe, but the 'objective' of each is far from similar. While the systems are similar and allow to 'mix and match', it is normal, to me at least, that the Marines gets the badass killer guns, while Rogue Traders gets the badass pimped out ones, while the DH acolytes gets a rusty knife, double-barrelled shotgun and not much info on what he's suppsoed to do (vulgirazing, but you know...).

ak-73 said:

ak-73 said:

Holding up with Astartes stuff is sufficiently vague though. But let's reverse engineer the TT stats from the suggested 40K RP stats? Would you rather assign S3 or S4 to a 1d10+7 Bolter (bearing in mind that the new Bolter stats in DW are 1d19+9)? That's what I mean with sufficiently vague. Even if you'd assign S3, one could then assign 1d10+8 and you'd logically have to equate that to S4 and it'd still be not as good as the Astartes Bolter. (Of course you'd also assign 1d10+10 ).

ak-73 said:

(*: In fact, I have already written them up at least for the boltgun and the armour - still needs playtesting, though)

ak-73 said:

By the way, with all the talk about bolters we have completely forgotten about all the other stuff like plasma pistols and flamethrowers...

ak-73 said:

This may come off as somewhat childish, but even if it would be a single point of difference in damage I do not see why the Astartes would have to get it just to preserve some special status they were - as far as Games Workshop is concerned - never meant to have. Aside from non-Marine characters being in need of every single bit of power that can be justified by canon when operating alongside them, it is of course also a matter of pride. Something can only be better, equal or weaker, and when Marines are canonically better at so many things, why should I accept artificially making non-Marines even weaker in areas where it makes no sense? I just don't perceive this need to suddenly "widen the gap" as many other posters (not really including you - you have demonstrated a honest interest in the subject and seem to understand the issue) obviously do.

ak-73 said:

Whilst it is absolutely understandable that people draw false conclusions from the way how Marines are hyped in most sources of fluff, said understanding stops at the ignorance towards GW studio canon, for the moment these facts are delivered, any clutching to these conclusions turns into wishful thinking (ironically, something I've been accused of a lot here) derived from interpretations deviating from GW's definition. Such as - sadly - a few of the things in the RPG books. It actually makes me wonder if the Deathwatch is really meant to be a "Chapter" in its own right with the Inquisitors of the Ordo Xenos having no authority over them, for this is another area where the RPG strongly differs from what GW told us.

ak-73 said:

That said, I think even Charmander noted that DH bolters seemed a bit "underpowered", though I do suppose this is a necessity of the usual RPG design which makes combat somewhat less lethal to prevent player characters from getting one-shot-killed even in situations where realism would demand so. Regardless of franchise, P&P design seems to be geared around the principle that weapons have to hurt people without killing them outright. And the way how Unnatural Toughness works in DW surely is a reason behind the increased damage as well. As someone else said: "You want your Marines capable of killing other Marines."

Lynata, if you disagree with the way all of this is written, then write your own rules. It's painfully obvious to the rest of us that you just want to whine about...something. If that is the case, call Glenn Beck. Otherwise, drop it. I know of no one else on the boards who eats as much space per page as you. Most of it is nitpicking. If you can't have a good time with the game then don't play. BTW, Dragon Age is crap. A tabletop RPG based off a video game RPG based off a tabletop RPG? Give me a break.

Anyone who wants to really write up WH 40K in a game should check out the HERO system. Of course, no one (including myself) who plays FFG's version wants to put as much time as is needed into devising WH 40K using the HERO system. I believe that FFG has a solid system. Space Marines, pound for pound, are going to outdo Inquisition in damage output. They're going to be better at combat (which includes better weapons, overall) because they're the best humanity has to offer. On occasion, the Adepta Sororitas may get a bolter that is an equivalent to an Astartes bolter, but that's the exception, not the rule. Live with it.

Remember, WH 40K is thematically designed to be in a longer, higher tech Dark Ages. Nuns with guns are not going to be treated as special as the Angels of Death because they don't have the proper equipment. It sucks, but it runs that way. If you don't like it, that's too bad.

Lynata said:

ak-73 said:

Holding up with Astartes stuff is sufficiently vague though. But let's reverse engineer the TT stats from the suggested 40K RP stats? Would you rather assign S3 or S4 to a 1d10+7 Bolter (bearing in mind that the new Bolter stats in DW are 1d19+9)? That's what I mean with sufficiently vague. Even if you'd assign S3, one could then assign 1d10+8 and you'd logically have to equate that to S4 and it'd still be not as good as the Astartes Bolter. (Of course you'd also assign 1d10+10 ).

You have a point there - it's just the current RAW stats which seem absolutely wrong compared to the TT. That said, there is still nothing vague about the term "equal"... But to touch on another topic, what would you do about the power armour?

Are you assuming that this statement about equality has been made with full foresight of a future RPG that had finer damage steps available? I don't think so. What I can derive from the statement is equality in terms of TT stats.

Power armour? I guess I would again think that equality in TT terms doesn't mean the same in 40K RP terms. I'd probably assign the sisters a PA whose values were just below what a Marine PA had. I guess AV 7 except for AV 8 in the chest? Also lower Strength bonus, of course.

Again the main reason for me is that a lot of people would find it hard to believe that the SoB armour would offer the exact same protection judging by visuals alone. Keeping it about a point lower keeps the armour equal in term of TT stats.

Lynata said:

I remember our conversation on the subject of ranks and progressing.

Lynata said:

No problem with giving the SoBs Astartes grade Promethium. Here the visuals don't interfere, no? Also if the sister was to roll with the Astartes in DW, I would hand out special ammo to her, probably as if she was a Tactical (one free clip per mission).

Lynata said:

It's not childish, it's not wanting to be second-class. But given how 40K is largely boy's wish fulfillment... yeah, I think it boils down to us guys not really seeing how the Astartes with their size and strength couldn't pack bolters of a callibre that does more damage than what a sister could wield. And I am not arguing what is established canon or not here.

I think 40K canon is flexible, as mentioned before. Viewers wouldn't understand it if in your movie bolt rounds would fail to penetrate power armour? Well, just make it so that it shreds through as if it doesn't exist.

You say stats can only be greater, lesser or equal. Yes but the question is if you are measuring in gradations and how rough or fine these are. If you go from rough to fine gradations, the question of if sth that used to be totally equal still is poses itself.

Anyway, there is not much use in debating it since it is a matter of taste. Anyway this is all theoretical in the sense that if I had a girl playing a SoB in my DW round, I suppose I'd be more liberal with her weapon stats also, meaning she'd probably wield the same arms.

Lynata said:

As I said: 40K is flexible and adapts to new media. I think that is actually one of the clever sides of GW. I was not one to make a huge fuss over the bolter killing marines in PA with ease (I was more put off by the brainless behaviour of the Black Legion but that's another thing).

Personally I think FFG should have the leeway to reinterpret some stuff and that would mean making SoB equipment a tick below Astartes quality. Now the stats we have in DH are of course more than just a tick below.

Lynata said:

"Even Charmander"?

I got to rub that into his face next time I run across him.

Lynata said:

I don't understand why Bolters had to be made less lethal to players in DH. If a melta gun normally kills a PC with one hitting attack, why shouldn't a full burst from a Bolter too? The good stuff should be insta-kill, which means cause burning fate.

I consider the DH bolters cheap knock-offs and I am fine with that. In TT terms they should have sth like S3 (and AP 5).

Ah, Lynata, in the end it's all a matter of taste and there is no accounting for it.

Alex

Hey be nice, reading threads is not compulsory so If you don't like a thread, don't read it.

Lynata makes a massive contribution around here and data storage is pretty cheap these days. Following this thread I have seen Lynata's position and her detractors come closer so progress (even slow progress) is being made and if they want to keep at it then it's their time and bandwidth so what's the problem?

oops, @ Benjimus Prime by the way.

ak-73 said:

Plus it's their real thing, isn't it? Kill it with fire and all the rest. Cool enough I'd even go for it and see if the flame weapons of a SoB could match the Bolter in strength, cause definitely these should rock.

And I feel concerned about the PDFs having Bolters, too. Don't really feel like it belongs. PDFs are under-equiped, untrained basic meat shields, except on some planets where they have enough money to make them look a bit beefier. But they should already be happy to have torchli...I mean Lasguns :]

Benjimus Prime said:

I admit that it's nitpicking, but considering that the issue in question makes crossover games (which were the reason why this topic was bumped again, in case you missed that) unfun and unnecessarily "nerfed" two armies I happen to like a lot, I hope you can see my reasons behind it.

Interesting thing about Dragon Age, though - I have never heard that DA:O would be based upon a P&P and always assumed it was just Bioware wanting to replicate their success with Neverwinter Nights in their own setting. Where have you heard that? Just out of curiosity.

ak-73 said:

ak-73 said:

So, I understand why these visuals could irritate people, but in the end it's just a lack of knowledge about the game world. Which isn't bad per se, but gets bad as soon as people close their eyes when confronted with the facts. But by that point, the idea of superior equipment seems to have already burnt itself into the minds of most, which brings us to the current stalemate situation in the community.

But yeah, taste...

By the way - ironically we are in agreement about the Angel armour being one point of AP below the contemporary Astartes pattern, though not for the same reasons: After some debate on these forums, I came to terms with the idea that all those aforementioned additional subsystems, whilst not being armour in the true sense, would still pose an obstacle to incoming damage, thus conferring an additional +1 AP.
My criticism in this aspect is directed towards the P&P difference of 2-3 AP, which doesn't even hold up to the TT comparison (with one being closer to carapace than the other), let alone the background fluff blurb (a difference of about one third is not "the same degree").

Lynata said:

So you are using that statement as your witness when it may never have been made with the intent of giving your grounds to insist full equality? You know at that time it was easy to say that it is equal because it was inconsequential and I would dare to assert that it was made without any foresight of someone calling herself Lynata making a case based on it years later on the forums of a then probably not relevant company called FFG.

Like I said, it's a matter of taste. I would assume though that your interpretation will get preferred by the predominantly male gaming populace. Just as a gentle warning for what to expect. :-)

Lynata said:

Except what does arguments of realism matter in a largely cineastic/epic setting? If viewers wanna see exploding cars, film producers will make it happen.

Lynata said:

There are no facts, at least none that cannot be ignored for the sake of tailoring a fitting interpretation for 40K RP.

Lynata said:

You're arguing from a simulationist end here though in a non-simulationist setting. I am coming from the other end, namely the one of proper staging, the cineastic end if you will. It doesn't matter what would be realistic, it only matters what would be plausible enough.

And judging by visuals alone your interpretation of total equality looks more implausible to the naive eye. Which is what matters a lot with the angle I am coming from.

Alex

ak-73 said:

This is not an interpretation, that's simply how the world was designed by its creators. If other people prefer FFG's interpretation that is all fine and dandy for them, and I'd be the last person to complain about how others run their games, but that doesn't make it canon.

ak-73 said:

But I don't quite understand two things:

• The majority of the debate did not revolve around how the individual careers should be represented in a cineastic fashion but how things are supposed to work like in the grim realism of the setting's most basic rules, and ...
• Where exactly does it say that only Marines have a right for cineastic/epic representation? This style is usually defined by the movie, not by the cast, so if you have a crossover game the same kind of logic would have to be applied to all "heroes" (whereas it would be fine to differentiate between heroes and sidekicks, or heroes and enemies).

Lynata said:

I am saying that it has been designed without finer gradations in mind. Same with armour. It's all pretty much based on the coarse TT steps. The fluff is heavily influenced by the way the crunch worked.

Lynata said:

I haven't been part of the significant parts of the debate, nor do I feel compelled on the behalf of anyone else here so... not sure how to comment on this.

Lynata said:

Basically, yes. So how would it work under my direction? Basically the NPC SoBs would be a step under the Astartes, both ability as well as gear-wise. (Gear as outlined previously.) A PC SoB of course would need to be able to fully roll with the Astartes, so she'd either have to have special gear and/or special abilities. Among the elite sisters, she'd either have to be a veteran sister or an especially gifted one, favoured by the Emperor.

I think a high-rank SoB with the Bolter and Armour as described plus loads of talents (mighty shot?) and gear including special ammo as well as a force field of whatever kind would very much be able to roll with the Astartes (not necessarily complete list of gear, melee might require special attention). I'd probably not allow her to join squad mode abilities (except if she learns it through special talent in time) but instead give her more or better faith powers than usual.

The basic message would be this: as gifted as the sisters are they can't roll with the Astartes. Normally, that is. But some especially gifted gals can keep up and possibly even outdo the Emp's finest.

That way, we still have the middle ground approach in which the sisters are basically RT level. And only the very young sisters would get to play in DH. How about spending a year or two as an Acolyte as part of your training? Might explain the presence of an inexperienced and not fully equipped sisters for rank 1 Acolytes. And you know, sometimes Inquisitors might ask to keep a sister, and who would the Ecclesiarchy be to say no? Just rationalizing.

Alex

ak-73 said:

Probably. But it still is the fluff, regardless of what is was meant for or how it came to be. Otherwise you could invalidate just about every canon fact that had a representation in the fluff. "Space Marines being harder to kill than Guardsmen? The canon just says so because they're T4 in the TT." That's just not how it works, imo.

That said, Sisters of Battle were already supposed to be on par with Space Marines long before they got their own miniatures and Codex. In the background, they existed since the original Rogue Trader TT, after all, and the very first picture we got of one had her shoot a Marine with her boltgun. *shrugs*

ak-73 said:

But would you make the same kind of distinction with Marine NPCs, then? The issue of two identical weapons doing different damage in the same game (which admittedly already exists with Horde rules) aside, you would have to apply this distinction between "heroes" and "extras" regardless of character type.

Not joining squad mode sounds perfectly reasonable. I am of the opinion that every professional military organization (including the Guard, the Arbites and the SoB) would have their own squad modes, but of course they would not need to be compatible with each other, nor do they need to sport the same kind of efficiency (you can say what you want about the Marines, but they are bound to be more experienced).

ak-73 said:

That's basically how Sororitas Acolytes were explained in the Inquisitor's Handbook. An explanation that, although heavily geared towards rationalizing a new aspect of fluff never before seen in studio canon, seemed to make sense and I have since adopted into my own. The whole novice idea was really something that IH did right.

Lynata said:

In the case of Marine Toughness it was first T3, then came the geneseed stuff (I think) and then in WD 129, they raised the T to 4, obviously due to gameplay reasons. Good thing they had the geneseed stuff for rationalization or else they'd have to make things up.

Indeed if they had kept T3, they hardly could have kept up the charade of super-tough elite soldiers.

Anyway, according to the last Codex Witchhunter it's hard to tell how on par the Sisters are when it comes to RPG gradations. We can say their weapons are roughly on par. Maybe stronger, maybe not.

As I said before: going from coarse to fine gradations opens up room for (re-)interpretations.

Lynata said:

"Basically the NPC SoBs would be a step under the Astartes, both ability as well as gear-wise."

First of all, as director I don't have to do anything but to please my audience. I don't even have to be consistent unless my target audience demands it.
Secondly, if you pick up on my above quote, an NPC Marine would have an edge on an NPC Sister on average. A PC SoB would not be average, not by a long shot. The distinction isn't heroes vs extras, it is marines vs sisters. But a heroine sister, if you will, would/should make any power gaps vanish (in order to provide a fair set-up for the party as a whole). And she would/should have an edge on Astartes NPCs just as her male companions and an even bigger edge on her sisters.

As for identical weapons, they wouldn't be. Perhaps near identical but not identical.

Alex

++++An explanation that, although heavily geared towards rationalizing a new aspect of fluff never before seen in studio canon, seemed to make sense and I have since adopted into my own.++++

Just like it makes a lot of sense that the substantially stronger Space Marines carry larger weapons?

Again, incidentally proving that we only ever hear that things are not canon when someone doesn't like it.

AluminiumWolf said:

Which still have the exact same muzzle size? I am also pretty sure that any heavy bolter is still larger and heavier than a Marine's boltgun, so logically, a character that could carry one should have no problem to carry the other. It just doesn't add up.

We also have actual fluff explanations for why Marine ranged weapons are slightly larger without doing more damage. One does not have to like it, but it's there. The rest is pretty much up to one's own game, i.e. whether to stick to the setting as defined by GW or to change things around a bit due to personal preferences.

Anyways ... I suppose we've pretty much exhausted everything that could be discussed by now. As ak-73 said, it boils down to a matter of taste.

One thing I remember Lynata is that GW changes their fluff all the time. ALL THE TIME. No Space wolf has fallen to taint, Fallen to the Curse of the Wulfen, yes. Warp no...

Then we have the tale about the ship taken by chaos because they tainted some space wolves into fighting for them.... Per the newest chaos Codex....

Retcon can you say?

I Justify the higher damage to the fact that more then likely the Space Marine Bolters have ammo that has more charge behind the Bolt round or having a finer purer Charge that burns hot and thus has more force behind it. Otherwise I would go insane trying to figure out which is which in the Grim Dark.