Lynata said:

Not really, no. That's why garrison troops (whose job it is to hold) are generally of poorer quality than front line elite infantry air assault brigades. Capture and hold are two distinct roles on the battlefield, as perhaps best illustrated by the role of armoured units to capture, which then cannot physically hold terrain and are replaced with infantry. The Heresy era indeed employed a lot of Guard troops, but the fiercest of fighting went to the Legions, and not solely in the role of small strike teams.

The fact remains that the Marines WERE a massed forced, and that's what they were intended to be. 'Legion' is a fairly indicative name, after all. The Great Crusade employed Astartes a thousand at a time, not piecemeal as kill-teams. Claiming that the marines were never intended as a battlefield force and have always operated merely to decapitate command structures and hit vital targets is incorrect.

[For a start, there's those black-clad field police marine units...]

Siranui said:

Perhaps that was a poor choice of words on my part - yet I find the fact that the Space Marines were followed by a far larger body of normal humans fairly indicative of the former being more of a spearhead rather than a traditional infantry force (out of which they may have originated on Terra, though).

Either way, even if that were so and the Astartes were once meant to fill the role of a traditional infantry without any dependence on the Imperial Guard for prolonged campaigns, that does not mean they still have to be able to fill it - given their massive losses throughout the Heresy and that the Imperium has long since been described as being in a steady decline, slowly losing territories left and right over the course of centuries and millennia.

I for one do not find it a flawed concept that not even the Space Marines seem to be able to turn this ship around. Fighting a war lost long ago (with the Emperor's death?) is simply yet another aspect of grimdark.

By the way - maybe this is relevant to the interests of some people in this thread; don't know if it's widely spread already:

I have to agree with Lynata on most things. In the entire history of TT (up until the RPG) there has only been one set of bolt gun stats. Through all the editions they've remained fairly constant. Sisters and Marines should have the same bolters. Lucky Rogue Traders too.

In my games I'm going hardcore and sticking to a RT level of stat conversion. Boltguns are:

Boltgun Basic 90m S/2/4 1d10+5 X 4 24 Full Tearing

If a kill team wants to pack a bigger punch, that's they they have requisition points and ammo selectors. Or a spare meltagun for melt your face action.

I genuinely don't think that there are going to be many people who want to play a Space Marine who are hoping that they will have the same kind of awesome might (or more precisely lack of it) that they display on the tabletop.

Agreed, from what little I know of TT the rank and file marines are underpowered. A squad if IG should be scared of one marine. Maybe not a company though in my mind.

Still you have to keep the TT balanced to sell lots of marines and that's okay with me I suppose. Interesting to see how the recent price hike will affect that. My die hard space wolf mates have already ditched 40k TT as a result.

Still playing DH though, mwah ha ha ha......

AluminiumWolf said:

Why not!?

Hard challenges are funny!

It's why I prefer Dark Heresy.

For this and for dabbling with moral matters and heresies.

Well, indeed the TT armies generally seem underpowered due to game mechanics and balancing. What some people don't seem to see, though, is that it goes for all of them. But apparently only Space Marines have a right for a "proper" representation.

That said, the d6 Tabletop Marines' +1 advantage in strength and toughness to most normal human units would roughly equate to a +20 in the RPG, which has a much larger impact on a d100 game further influenced by conditional modifiers and which, most importantly, also has way more wounds, keeping the individual units alive much longer, thus allowing them to operate with greater efficiency and slightly less reliance on dice luck. Equipment plays a much larger role as well, and the Astartes tend to get the best (if not in all cases, and not solely, as some would believe). Superiority without invincibility. The foundation for true heroics.

Not that this has anything to do with my main gripe. But that's how I'd probably have done it in terms of basic stats. At least for crossover games - there's nothing wrong with a set of special rules for a more "legendary" feel. As long as one doesn't mix and match characters from both rulesets without adaption.

Well, like I say, the Deathwatch rules are an unhappy medium - Marines are not awesome enough to deserve their reputation in the fluff or to live up to the dreams of Space Marine fanboys, but at the same time they are not crippled enough to satisfy people with no intention of playing a slightly disappointing Space Marine but who want to make sure the Marine fanboys are not having the wrong sort of fun.

Clarification: It was never my intention to ruin people's fun. I am not argueing against DW's Marines, I am argueing for everyone else.
Or, to explain it in more detail: There would be no problem if the DW ruleset would stand apart from the other games more clearly. The way it is done now and how an apparently rather large part of the community perceives it, though, I feel annoyed by the comparisons drawn by some people and how the system would, in case of a crossover game, unjustly (as far as GW fluff is concerned) penalize other careers simply because there are no rules to lift them to the same style of narration yet.

It's as if you'd take the characters from "Game of Thrones" and put them into "Lord of the Rings" without allowing them to do the same kind of stunts. It just makes for a poor representation and turns them into extras, for regardless of how well they play their roles, they will always stand in the shadows of the heroes who use a different set of rules. Just imagine how the Gaunt's Ghosts novels would look like if you'd apply the standard IG theme.

I really don't mind people enjoying DW's "legendary" style gameplay (and as I said I still want to try it myself) - as long as they would not make others look bad just for playing a grittier game. At the end of the day, you don't see me complaining about various Space Marine "bolter porn" novels or computer games (and there's surely no lack of them) either. They do not affect me. The RPGs' supposed compatibility does.

In fact, no. It's even simpler. I was already slightly annoyed way before Deathwatch came out, simply because of the silly idea of "civilian" boltguns and plasma weapons. As if there'd have been a need to invent this distinction. Then again, considering how even PDF Corporal John Smith from frontier colony Arse-End runs around with a bolter in the P&P nowadays ... I suppose it was inevitable, so as to at least the almighty Astartes would preserve some exclusivity.

Lynata said:

The question is then whether that fluff only exists because of game balance and if we have to transfer this game balance to the rpg medium.

Lynata said:

That's not how authoring a game world works though. Instead you develop a vision without the contraints of a tabletop game (which is what has been done), detached from the actual balance that exists on the gaming table (or doesn't, necrons suck hard for now). Without this "what kind of world could this be", 40K would have no interesting fluff.

Lynata said:

Flaws of an army in crunch or in fluff though? Because the crunch may be more loosely connected to the fluff than you may want to accept. Maybe GW would like to give S5, T5, Bolters with S5, maybe they don't because it would practically unplayable at 500 or 750 or so.

Lynata said:

From a standpoint of artistic integrity, I would go with whatever vision of the setting felt right. And if it felt making army owners feel bad about their choice of army, tough luck. Of course that's a purists standpoint that one can ill-afford.

Again it depends on the medium. You can get away with more in novel than in a rpg.

Lynata said:

You're exaggerating. Let's please take note that there ain't no imperial guards players in this thread because they think their lasguns are too weak in comparison to Astartes Bolters. And it would certainly not fair to assume that one would come up with an epic interpretation of the Astartes only out of immature fandom without any artistic integrity.

Lynata said:

As determined by who and based on what fluff. I dispute that that what you call studio canon should be the highest authority. I think the higher authority should be what GW thinks the 40K world looks like beyond the constraints of a tabletop game.

Lynata said:

Ha! They just didn't want to use my stats directly!

Lynata said:

I understand that entirely, it's just that my vision of the 40K universe differs, I think that my vision is more inline with certain interpretations out there and that they actually might be more reflective of GW's intentions than that what you call studio canon. And I am saying that to underline that I pretty much had DW set up on the same power level. And I think the sisters come off a notch or two to badly.

And I already told you why I think Astartes weapons should do more damage, even if just by 1 or 2 points - the size enabling the marines to fire bolts who pack slightly more punch, which doesn't go against 40K crunch even due to the more coarse gradations there.

Lynata said:

Except we haven't been debating if the sisters are c**p, only about the strength of their bolters and power armour.

Lynata said:

I have told you before and I say it again: you can't hold me to what someone else has said. And sometimes, when I change my mind, you can't hold me to what I have said before. I happen tosay nonsense occasionally.

Lynata said:

I don't think you fully understand the complexity of writing a role-playing system with the enormous differences in scale that exist between DH and DW while at the same time adhering to existing stuff like 40K weapon damage tables which need to be properly mapped.

The only way to do this properly is to not do and instead use old RT-era rules and stats instead.

And another thing: the quality of a rpg (and not even of a system) does not depend on whether rock throwing does 1d10+20 or not.

Lynata said:

That's the point there is no consistency, that's the point. Which is why you have to guesstimate the intentions of GW. Or simply ask them directly if you can. The power level of DW at least seems to have Alan Merrett's stamp of approval.

Lynata said:

Well, if I was part of an insurgency (Chaos cult or Genestealer infestation or Eldar/Tau propaganda) and Astartes would arrive to swing the battle in favour of the stationed and otherwise struggling Imperial Guards, I would not be worried. Rig every HW with enough explosives. Use long-range heavy artillery, whatever. 50 men, even if walking tanks can be killed easily enough, especially if you are winning the intelligence war against the Guards.

Lynata said:

Well, loss of a wound point means you have taken a noteworthy step closer to death. Crunch-wise and high toughness enables you to escape having to take that step. Which in turn means, it might be a grazing wound and a full-scale penetration but it didn't have any noteworthy effect. Note that the super-human Astartes physiology allows for such an interpretation. "Ah, it's just a calliber .30, never mind, it didn't hit anything vital"

Lynata said:

It doesn't matter. If any army of hundreds of thousands is prepared, the losses of the Astartes will be staggering. You can test this for yourself: put some DH characters in charge of loyalists fighting struggling traitor guard who suddenly get supplemented by 50 CSM. Put the full-scale ressources of a million strong military at their disposal. The players will find a way to lay traps and kill the renegades off left and right if they have those ressources.

In essence I don't see where bolter stats I have suggested are noteworthy violation of fluff. I don't see how the interpretation of DH bolters as second-rate replica's as violation. I also don't see the Astartes making any noteworthy impact in an Imperium of a million systems.

Alex

Lynata said:

It sounds as if you're stuck in tabletop mode though and haven't fully arrived in rpg mode yet. Artistic license, Lynata. Personally, I like the concept of "cheap" (no, not really, not in low-level DH) knock-off bolters. Anyway, the RPG isn't obliged to precisely and perfectly map everything you consider studio canon from the TT. It can expand, fill in blanks, it can make slight modifications, thus FFG creating their own interpretation of the 40K setting.

Alex

ak-73 said:

No, not really. There is no a question. The fluff exists - period. You can't go ahead and say "Marines need to be more awesome because of their fluff" and then point out that the very same fluff is hindered by the TT, as that begs the question what kind of fluff you are basing your opinion on. The novels? Where do their authors base their interpretation on?

At the end of the day, you're either playing Warhammer 40.000 - or something that you made up yourself, based solely on your personal preferences and ideas. All depending on how much one's interpretation differs from the studio material, i.e. if it can still be "reconciled" with the core material or if it stands apart as a little world on its own.

The fact that we are even having this discussion makes me think that the mythos Space Marines has gone out of GW's control, with novel and comic authors making them way more powerful than their original creators intended, and their fans happily picking up on this interpretation - so that we have now reached a point where GW studio canon, where the Astartes originated, is dismissed because it doesn't fit in with that image.

That said, Games Workshop does not even want to have that control. Judging from all the official statements we got to hear so far, the powers that be don't really care about debates such as the one we have here, and are of the opinion that every fan is free to make up his own interpretation of the official setting. This is a rather clever move, as it allows GW to further cash in on their most popular creation. And yet all that still doesn't matter as they will continue to develop the official game canon in their own way, as Gav Thorpe said.

ak-73 said:

This RPG has already delivered three visions of Astartes gear without the contraints of a tabletop game. The community's reaction, the "power creep" and the extreme care that went with how the newest "optional" rules were worded instead suggests another type of constraint: pleasing the crowd; the buyers of a game aimed solely and exclusively at Space Marines. I don't really believe that the writers went into it with the goal of creating an unbiased and accurate representation of Astartes Awesomeness. Which is, I think, rather obvious with all those special rules for free Fate Points, no corruption/insanity effects, insane amounts of damage compared to earlier official stats, etc...

Two different perspectives, I guess.

ak-73 said:

I think that most flaws of an army are present in both their rules as well as their fluff. They go hand in hand - unsurprisingly, as both were created for the same product. Some flaws are, of course, only found in their fluff as they cannot be represented on the table. Either way, I am not aware of any conflict, so both may serve as inspiration, to a degree (said degree concerning mainly the abstractions of the crunch).

ak-73 said:

If they really wanted to do that, they'd just make the models cost more. That was the idea behind Grey Knights, after all.

ak-73 said:

The problem with the Imperial Guard would be a different one - namely that DW Space Marines are completely invincible against lasguns. Whilst it is, in my opinion, absolutely correct that lasguns should do little against such heavily armoured and genetically enhanced warriors, they should still do something.

That said, perhaps the RPGs current rules are just not sufficient, as they lack equipment damage, which would allow lesser weapons to gradually weaken an opponent's armour. Yet, either if that is so, the absence of such rules should be substituted, not make for invincibility. It is admittedly an issue not only affecting Space Marines, as lasguns already cease to be effective against normal humans once they start wearing power armour and push their TB. Iffy. Makes me think TB is too strong in general. The problem was just made even bigger with Unnatural stats, which in turn - following an unfunny game of one-upsmanship - triggered the creation of the "Felling" weapon quality; equipment that is somehow able to kill off Space Marines without inflicting an equal amount of damage on weaker victims. Just another scratch on the long list of weird observations.

ak-73 said:

Then we have no authority. GW doesn't "police" licensee productions a lot (they do have a long editing process, but obviously a lot gets missed depending on the editor), which is why we have so many contradictions throughout the novels. The head of GW Publishing himself noted that Black Library "exists to tell interesting stories", not to provide an accurate representation of the world. Again: Multilasers.

On a sidenote, there was GW's "Inquisitor" RPG. Which also had Marines use the same boltguns as everyone else, and which clearly wasn't constrained in any way (they even printed a warning about Space Marines being much more powerful than other classes). Doesn't count either, I guess? And how do you think about the Vindicare's pistol that was mentioned earlier?

ak-73 said:

It goes against logic, though. The caliber similarity is canon (even in the RPG), so the guns have the same barrel size, regardless of how large whatever is around ends up to be. I have no idea how large you would want to make a Space Marine boltgun, but it wouldn't change the barrel. Now you could argue with projectile length, but then we'd end up with magazines too large for a Marine to grasp. And again, 2.1 meters isn't that abnormal. We have people of this height on our own Earth, too, and I'm sure the 40k setting has some planets that would promote such development.

But even if we would go with your thoughts, the entire argument gets invalidated by people lugging heavy bolters around solo, without issues. Why would the same people suddenly have a problem with smaller and lighter guns that have a lower RoF, just because they say "Astartes" on the tin? I will keep asking that question until someone who uses the "size" argument provides a reasonable explanation.

You'd probably have a less conflicting explanation if you would argue that the Marines would simply use a higher quality or special materials, as one or two posters before already did. Then again, this is a dangerous road that will likely boil down to the "well, because!" way of thinking that I've been criticizing - conjuring supposed advantages out of thin air because of the alleged fact that Space Marines always have to be better at everything, everywhere.
Rule of cool is good and well, but only when it is applied equitable. Either all players are playing the same game with the same rules, or they don't.

ak-73 said:

I understand that DW is meant to provide a more "epic" feel of gameplay than DH, which is why I claim that it uses diffrent rules and stats than what we were used to before - even as far as Astartes were concernced. Obviously, what existed before was not really adhered to. Neither in terms of studio fluff nor in what already existed in this very RPG. And if you take a look at the Introductory Adventure, Marine equipment even took a jump up from there until reaching its peak in the DW Core Rulebook.

ak-73 said:

With or without Horde rules?

Just to point out, that according to Games Workshop, everything using their IP, be it "studio" stuff, Black Library, the RPGs or the Trading Card Game, is all 100% canon. They have explicitly stated in the past that nothing is more or less canon than anything else.

So saying "FFG had 2 options here...", or "the SMs in the RPG are wrong" is wrong. They had one option: Make an RPG in the 40k setting. Everything they make goes through Games Workshop, where it is vetted and checked that it is accurate to GW's IP. Therefore, by dint of it being printed and released, Games Workshop agreed that it accurately represented their setting IP.

Now, if you want to argue that GW are wrong about their own setting, and that, in the RPG, Space Marine weapons and stats shouldn't be better than other people, you can do, but you are wrong, because GW says you are. You are more than welcome to change whatever you want, it's your right as a GM, and the GW Ninja Squad isn't going to burst through your door and burn you as a heretic, but by altering it, you are no longer playing GW's 40k setting. You are playing your own.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with that. You have your own preferences, FFG and GW have theirs. No one said that their setting had to be 100% compliant with what you want.

What people should do is just agree to disagree, and agree that the GM, for their given game, can change what they want. It might not be compliant with the rules or setting that GW have approved, but they can do what they want, as long as they don't keep on going on about how "the RPG is wrong" (when, as a GW product for a GW setting, it technically CAN'T be wrong), and let us that like it get on with it. It's not going to change now due to peoples' opinions regardless, so why argue about it?

Just do what you want, but equally let everyone else do what they want, and everyone will be a lot happier.

Plus, check the new Deathwatch errata. I think you'll find the alternate weapon stats for the Astartes weapons to your taste, if you dislike the ones in the core book.

GWs head of IP says a Space Marine can take on a modern infantry division (15000 men) single handed with ease.

You will excuse me if I expect them to live up to the hype, and be disappointed if the can't.

1) Citation required for that statement, thanks. A link will do fine.

2) I assume you mean Alan Merrett? He isn't the sole person to decide what the setting details are, so until he starts actually being one of the people who writes the GW products, rather than just being the head administrator of the IP division, what he says only constitutes personal opinion, rather than what is actual fact/canon in the setting. I for one have never seen it stated explicitly that a Space Marine should be the match for 15,000 men, though if you wish to provide a source for that in the current fluff, I'd appreciate it.

Only published material is canon, so Alan Merrett can say all he wants, and it doesn't make a difference until it's in print.

MILLANDSON said:

Dammit, I just want to hear people talk with enthusiasm about how awesome Space Marines are! Be more like that guy!

Complete the sentence:- 'Space Marines are so cool that...'

"Space Marines are so awesome that they don't need ever increasing power levels to prove it".

Watched the video and I'm sorry but I can't take that guy seriously. It really felt like he just threw that quip in at the end about being able to 'take on an infantry division with ease' to talk up the product. (My salesman bulshit detector was going off big time) Maybe if it was an infantry division with lobotamies and reject lasguns and only one charge tactic, but honestly, in 15000 troops there are a lot of devious mellon farmers.

(and just to add another starter for ten, if like they say in the clip, one in one hundred is good enough to be a space marine, and one in one hundred space marines are good enough for deathwatch then that infantry division will have fifteen troops that are good enough to be space marines, and there will be one or two that are good enough for deathwatch. Given that they said that in the clip, are those statistics as 'cannon' as asserting that one marine can take on a division?) Give me fifteen men that are good enough to be space marines, and I will use them to take out one actual space marine. My point I guess is beware of the 'canon hammer' because the canon isn't internally consistent. Take the bits you like and don't worry if someone else disagrees.

I myself don't worry too much about canon, being a RPer I get to imagine things how they make the most sense and fun for me.

So I've rephrased...

"Space Marines are so awesome, that I don't care how much we disagree about power levels, because they're awesome either way".

MILLANDSON said:

This is a fairly important thing, as I believe that many people are not aware of how GW canon works.

MILLANDSON said:

I never mentioned Marines should not have better stats than a normal human, though.

MILLANDSON said:

MILLANDSON said:

Surprisingly, autoguns are now incapable of fully automatic fire? As are boltguns. I've always been of the opinion that bolters should allow for full auto bursts, regardless of system. Most people seem to houserule keeping the old RoF, though. I'd do the same.

Zakalwe said:

Lynata said:

SO does 40K RP stuff - period. If you don't adapt it as written, you are going against the fluff. Not that it matters.

Lynata said:

I can go ahead and do that. Except I am not doing that. Marines don't need to be more awesome. You will have to face the fact that a good deal of gamers have no problem with the Astartes being the same power level that FFG provided. You will also have to acknowledge that there is sufficient precendence for that in novels. Both the novels as well as the RPG are GW sanctioned and they are GW sanctioned although the power level of the marines substantially deviates from their tabletop capabilities.

The conclusion I and others draw from that is that this power level is what GW actually intends for marines but doesn't implement because of TT game balance reasons (costs for Grey Knights be explode too).

Lynata said:

Except that GW themselves don't give that much of a **** about their own studio material when it comes to anything else but the tabletop rules. And you can qualify those deviations as something you made of your own but it won't invalidate any of it for anyone else but you.

The DW power level of Astartes is out and thousands of people are gaming with it. And there is no substantial uprising of non-Astartes gamers in these forumjs complaining about the power level that the Astartes have in 40K RP. Deal with it.

Lynata said:

I'll tell you again: GW canon is non-fixed. That is partially because GW wants to maintain the flexibility to reinvent itself and partially so that different authors can come up with different interpretations of the same universe. The interpretation that Astartes are stronger than in the tabletop has become de facto accepted in many circles, I would dare to assert even before the publication of DW as evidenced by lack of public outcry at the release of DW over the Astartes power level.

There has been no significant outcry over it.

Lynata said:

Sure but that doesn't mean that fluff detached from the TT constraints cannot and will not canonize. In most of the fluff the Astartes will remain at a power level comparable to DW, I presume. And as for whether a SoB bolter does exactly the same as an Astartes bolter or may be one point or two less will be hard to decypher in a novel.

Lynata said:

I think you have never designed a whole RPG system from the ground up. I am only aware of one interpretation of Astartes in 40K RP, namely the DW one. Please name me the other two (please note that I don't consider a single NPC an interpretation of its own, nor a slight adjustment of weapon damages).

Lynata said:

So tell me about the flaws of the Astartes.

Lynata said:

As I said above, where would that leave the Grey Knights? Or Calgar, Kantor, etc.? I doubt playing against T5, 3+ across the board would be much fun for a number of armies out there. And at low point values, those would get swamped by numbers. As I said, pretty much unplayable at 500 or 750 where they'd drown in ork boys or Guard tanks.

Lynata said:

You're evading my point though.

Lynata said:

In my games they can do thanks to righteous fury rule. End of problem.

Lynata said:

You're not being logical here. Lasguns have a trouble wounding if humans wear power armour, you say. If you are content lasguns ability of wounding unarmoured humans, then the problem is that power armour is too powerful against lasguns indicating that a lower value for PA is needed or that Lasguns need higher Pen. If you are dissatisfied with lasguns against unarmoured humans, then give it +1 damage.

I already stated that I'd give DH weapons +1 damage across the board. Makes for better integration with DW too.

And I think the mechanic of concept is totally sound with sniper rifles (and of course relics = magic items), although it should be more a talent than a weapon quality.

Lynata said:

Yes and no. Of course we have an authority in that GW must permit publication of a work. Beyond that, we not only have no authority, we also have no fixed canon. What we have is cluster of interpretations and the center of the cluster is what is most representative of what GW thinks the game world looks like outside of TT constraints.

Lynata said:

Where is CS Goto now? Will BL in the future pay more attention to authors not going complete off-base? They certainly will to protect their standing with gamers.

Lynata said:

I didn't say it doesn't count. I am saying it's one dot in the cluster. As for the pistol, it did have near Astartes grade quality, iirc. I'm fine with that. No contradiction to my interpretation of the game universe there.

Lynata said:

I'll start to worry about it as soon 40K RP turns into a simulationist game or I want to run it as such. Other than that cars can explode when shot, so-to-speak.

Lynata said:

No problem.

Lynata said:

Are you arguing with physics against my point? My point being because Astartes are bigger and their guns are bigger (irrespective of what canon says calliber is) they should do more damage, even if just by a 1 point or two. Because that way, you're not going to make me abandon my point.

Hello, I am running a cineastic interpretation, remember?

Lynata said:

You mean you want a simulationist explanation for a cineastic interpretation?

Okay, let's try: the SoBs can carry around HB which are for them about as difficult to handle as an Astartes Boltgun; their sizes fall into the same category for them, even if the Astartes boltgun is a good deal smaller. They need to brace the Astartes Boltgun hard against their shoulder because their ammo uses a significantly more violent propulsion and the trigger plus trigger guard are not made for puny mortal hands, thus they can wield the Astartes Bolter but they have trouble keeping it on target, thus counting as heavy weapon with -30%.

For a non-simulationist rpg this must suffice as a rationalization.. If it doesn't for you, you're outta luck.

Lynata said:

Well, I'll repeat what I said before: that's not how it goes. You don't have to develop a game world for a RPG so that everyone gets their equal share. It's perfectly okay to build tiers, if that's what you want to. If you are designing a simulationist game, you better have a good explanation at hand (even if it's just Star Trek pseudo-science) but you must be consistent.

In a cineastic game, you don't have these constraints. The only thing you have to do observe is cineastic plausability. Cars don't explode when shot. If the viewers don't know that though but know that cars contain gas and gas can explode/erupt/whatever, then you can get away with selling them that until it becomes a trope and thus will be accepted by the audience even though they know it doesn't work like that.

And if the audience expects the gun of 210m tall super-soldier to do more damage than a comparable weapon in the hands of a normal sized woman, then this will likely be the case in a cineastic interpretation. Of course if the normal sized woman was a special heroine or had an artefact bolter it would be a different thing.

Lynata said:

Dear Lynata without toting my own horn once again, the recent DW errata largely coincides with my own previously suggested changes (not the nerfing of normal bolter's ROF though). And I can personally testify that it is difficult to properly model all kinds of weapons relative to each and relative to various baddies. And then on top of it aginst vehicles too. And then to keep it coherent with DH weapons? It would have been easier (but not easy) if the system had been designed from the ground up as one game.

And the weapon stats in Final Sanction are the same as in the rulebook. I can't say that Marine equipment overall took a jump.

Lynata said:

That is, as always, the GM's decision. I would give the advice to use them though.

Alex

MILLANDSON said:

Let's put it this way: Lynata would have liked 40K RP stuck closer to "studio material". That's legitimate, doubly so as a Sororita fan, I say.

But I'll repeat it again because I think it says it the best: there is no fixed canon but a cluster of interpretations and I wouldn't consider the studio material the final authority but in designing a 40K RP game world, I would simply take the 'center' (the average if you will) of this cluster of diverging interpretations. You revise all the material from all the GW approved sources and you try to approach the middle ground. And of course take some creative license in deviating a bit according to your own preferences.

That's how we arrive at 40K RP as it is (to some degree).

Alex

MILLANDSON said:

Obvious hype is obvious. I think he just said it because it was a sales line that sounded good.

Alex

ak-73 said:

Obvious hype is obvious. I think he just said it because it was a sales line that sounded good.

Yeah but 1: Sounding good is what Marines are for and

2: It demonstrates that you need to be pretty obtuse not to notice that Marines in the wider fluff are way harder than they are on tabletop.

AluminiumWolf said:

Making money is what marines are for. What marines are capable of will depend on the audience that GW wants to buy their stuff.

Since the target audience of the TT game and BL is, sadly, largely children, naturally enough marines are presented as cartoon superheroes, because that is what a 12-year-old's mind wants to pretend to be.

However, the target audience of pen-and-paper RPGs is not largely children and the market generally does not want to pretend to be cartoon superheroes, having somewhat better developed personalities and minds than a prepubescent child (in most cases).

Therefore, RPG marines are different.

bogi_khaosa said:

Thanks for being disparaging towards people who enjoy animation and the superhero genre, and denigrating everyone who has ever played a superhero RPG. We really appreciate it.