N0-1_H3r3 said:

Well, he has a point in that GW clearly has been targeting young teens since 2E. Rogue Trader was the RPG edition and they have been dumbing it down (something I had taken against GW back then) first and then later turned it into a competitive game with 3E.

However, Deathwatch isn't just for teens. That's like saying only an immature teenager would play a Paladin in D&D. For example, my Blood Angel librarian is a man who is trying with all his might to be a galactic role model, yet finds himself being struck with a terrible flaw that he can't get rid of and doesn't know how to handle.

That's an adult theme and goes beyond "Hey, let's crack some bad guys' skulls."

Alex

ak-73 said:

FFG fluff, yes. Something they made up on the fly and that is attempting to invalidate 20 years of GW fluff. Just like some novels and comics do. As I said, in the end I'd be content with the admission that this is simply not how things look like beyond this one RPG. Because that is a fact.

And apparently, playtesters from the Bolter & Chainsword forum got told exactly that - but an official, public statement would settle things much easier than hearsay.

ak-73 said:

The RPG is just as "sanctioned" as any other contradictory novel and comic out there, including the ones that make Marines get one-shot by lasguns. If GW would really think like you say, they would not have added those quite specific lines to their studio canon, for there was absolutely no need to include them. Compare the "Vestments" page from BoM with the WH Codex and see what FFG did differently.

ak-73 said:

Only in so far as that GW reserves the right to retcon itself, as it happens in just about every larger sci-fi franchise. Beyond that, GW maintains a clear distinction between what they do, and what everybody else does. They don't care much about the details that licensee writers put into their books, because they have always drawn a line between studio canon and other products, which is why the former gives us a coherent look at the universe, whilst the latter are just many interpretations that differ from each other as well as, often enough, studio material. It's a chaos (though I have heard that BL thinks about being more consistent in the future - no details on that one though).

ak-73 said:

Which is one I have subscribed to as well, as I said previously. But there's a difference between providing a more faithful interpretation of studio canon, and going against the established rules of the universe. Such as bolt pistols doing more damage than heavy bolters just because one says "Astartes" and the other doesn't.

ak-73 said:

Why not? It is just as official and has been printed in the books, even if it goes against your argument. And said NPC's weapon damage is at least consistent with the Angelus carbine from IH, which uses "Astartes-grade" ammunition. The power creep only started with DW, a product aimed solely at Marine players. Coincidence?

ak-73 said:

That's just it. There aren't many, which is why I am puzzled as to why they would have to be made even stronger than they already were. Aside from their relative scarcity, the only real flaw that comes to mind is the arrogance and common incompatibility with normal Imperial society, though that's more of a roleplaying thing than something present in the mechanics.

ak-73 said:

Not really. I am well aware that I am the loudest of the critics - yet I hope you have seen the others as well; though apparently in a minority, I am not alone in this. And that Guardsmen or Arbites careers are negatively affected by this newly invented difference is a fact. Actually, in crossovers, every combat class would be affected, save for the Vindicare, who at least gets similarly hi-power weapons in Ascension.

ak-73 said:

Which, as per RAW; doesn't apply to NPCs, as it is a "story bonus" setting heroes apart from the rank-and-file.

Apart from that, how often would that happen? You'd have to roll a 10 on a d10, followed by another confirmed attack, and then (assuming an average Marine and a standard lasgun) at least another 8 on the d10 to do just a single wound. And a Marine has how many wounds? Phew.

ak-73 said:

Which would be what, exactly? The DH rules? The DW introductory adventure ones? The DW core ones? The optional errata?

Outside GW, the only interpretation that is "most representative" seems to be pretty much what people want it to be depending on their personal preferences.

ak-73 said:

Except that it makes no sense whatsoever that a boltgun gets turned into the "x3 size" heavy category just because it is 5cm larger, that the trigger plus trigger guard are indeed made for "puny mortal hands" according to Codex fluff, and that even in the RPG Sororitas in power armour or normal humans with Bulging Biceps get no penalty for using heavy weapons without bracing them first; the -30% penalty is very obviously just there to provide another slap in the face for non-Marines. So, guess I'm outta luck. I'll stick with what I've been used to from 20 years, and which will likely continue to be printed by GW.

ak-73 said:

Exactly. But then you shouldn't go ahead and proclaim that there's no problem with having characters from one tier to play in the other. As I said, FFG would just have needed to point out that DW uses a more "heroic" narrative and thus employs rules and stats not compatible with the other games.

ak-73 said:

Here I absolutely agree.

ak-73 said:

In Final Sanction? The weapons, yes. But take a look at the armour. The weapons only jumped up from how they were represented multiple times in Dark Heresy.

By the way, if you want to look at how GW thinks about Space Marines "outside the constraints of the TT", I recommend the Inquisitor RPG - the resources are still readily available on their website. Despite Space Marines being much tougher than stronger than normal humans, they still use the same friggin' bolters, because GW did not subscribe to the idea that everybody and his mum should have one.

• Inquisitor Rulebook PDF part I (includes weapon stats and descriptions)
• Inquisitor Rulebook PDF part II (includes character classes)
• A Warning on Space Marines by Gav Thorpe

Actually, I recommend the last PDF also as a great resource for any DW player and GM, as it includes some pretty good descriptions and inspiration for Space Marines, kill teams, and their campaigns.

I'd like to bring up the idea of tiers was actually the intention of GW read the opening Alan Merrett. He also explains that Deathwatch would be able to show space marine sin their "full glory". Which is to say GW actuallly had the seperation in mind for both DH and DW. Hell one can me argued that all of DH is cannon because it was directly written by people from GW if I am reading the inscription right.

Incidentally, if you try to use Brother Artemis(the Inquisitor scale Marine)'s boltgun on a normal human it looks huge.

It would make a lot of sense, and be kinda cool, if it was designated as a larger weapon than those weilded by the unenhanced humans, perhaps doing something cool like more damage.

Similarly, could she lift this boltgun if it was made out of metal?

Could he?

Maybe this guy?

As far as I am concerned, Space Marines using bigger guns than unenhanced humans is pretty much the holy grail of fluff development - not only is it pretty cool that Marines are so hardcore that they use guns an unenhanced human couldn't even lift, it actually makes sense in the setting.

Somehow the images after the first one look way larger than the "lifesize Space Marine" Jes Goodwin has drawn. Probably because they have not been GW productions, judging from their quality.

Small girl, by the way. Not that I don't think she has no chance of lifting that weapon, given years of training and a suit of powered armour. It works for the heavy bolters, after all.

AluminiumWolf said:

In your eyes.

Marine boltguns are larger, but not by that much. As the fluff notes, they sport a layer of additional armour to make them more resilient in the form of combat the Astartes often engage in. Neither does this magically double the size of the gun (see barrel size), nor does it have any effect on the damage. The latter comes from what it shoots, not how big it is.

If you really value your Marine fluff, go and read the 2E Marine Codex (the one with the daily schedule) - it contains a nifty short story about how the Ultramarines recruit new inductees from one of their worlds, and it mentions how the Marines give them their bolters to see if the children can handle them. Those who complete the bolter drill without injuries pass the test and get recruited.

Children. Firing Ultramarine bolters. CHILDREN.

But if you want, feel free to give the Marines in your games caliber 5.00 pistols and bolters that do 4d10+10 damage, if you think this is absolutely necessary to enjoy playing one. I'll stick to how GW designed this setting, and how the existing facts actually fit together.

++++I'll stick to how GW designed this setting, and how the existing facts actually fit together.++++

++++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.++++

We have already established that you will assimilate new information so long as you like it and it makes sense.

And you have to admit, no matter how much you may hate it for Marines to be awesome, it makes a lot of sense for them to use bigger guns...

Lynata said:

See?

Lynata said:

And you were present and know when and how this was made up?

Lynata said:

And you think people sat together and went "Yo, let's try to invalidate 20 year old GW fluff, that would be the kick"?

Lynata said:

What is a fact though? That Space Marines are much more stronger than humans? If we go by the pdf by Gav that you posted below, Deathwatch is too conservative and AluminiumWolf is right:

"So it is entirely fitting that a Space Marine can punch a man’s head off his shoulders even without his strength-enhancing armour..."

Normal Marine does 1d10+8 (-3TB) damage for an average of 13.5 to a DH Cult Fanatic. that causes a -3/4 Impact Crit, only. Perhaps an additional level of Unnatural Strength might fit the description better.

Or the ability to shrug off wounds that would incapitate lesser men. Said poor Cult Fanatic gets hit by expertly placed shot with a hunting rifle 3d10+3-3 = 15.5 on average, putting him 5 or 6 into critical in the head. Somewhat incapacitating. The Marine without armour takes 10.5 on average, halving his wound points probably. Not exactly shrugging off.

Not only does that mean your suggesting version of Unnatural characteristics is off, we have precedence that Unnatural attributes of marines might be a level too low.

Lynata said:

Okay, that rumours not fact. Please tell me again what fact is? That SoB bolters so far had the same damage as Astartes Bolters? Yes, but as I said finer gradations allow for finer distinctions. That bolters previously were less common and were not S3 equivalents? Agreed. I don't consider this an eart-shattering interpretation though.

There is cheap knock-off bolters, no problem to me.

Please state further blatant fluff violations that are fact and in dispute here.

Lynata said:

Sure they can. That's what Righteous Fury is for. It's just that they are normally not unless you roll a 10, confirm RF and roll another 10 with your lasgun.

And to put it into context with what I said before: just another dot in the cluster, hardly at the center.

Lynata said:

What is this about though?

Lynata said:

Only in so far as authors have significant freedom in interpreting the "studio material" and the studio material itself is either inconsistent or prone to change that is significant in comparison to other franchises.

Lynata said:

I read things differently than you do: GW folks don't want to tie their own hands. They don't want their hands to get tied by Dan Abnett and they don't want their hands get tied by previous editions either. Are you trying to sell me that it is inconceivable that GW authors decide for 6E: Marines now cost more but have S and T 5? They have changed marine stats before (in a WD issue!) and I see no hints at them feeling more obliged to old rules now.

There is no fixed canon. If necessary they'll explain unwanted parts away as rumours or just state "rocks fall, all space swarves die but don't mention that ever again". I understand you don't like this and thus it might be hard for you to swallow. There is no fixed canon. You have for yourself taken studio material to be the ultimate interpretation.

To me it's just another dot in the cluster. One near the center but no more. Not the center because the significant divergencies in published novels, this rpg, etc. shift the center away from it.

Lynata said:

Again: the existence of more readily available, sub-par cheap knock-off bolters is hardly earth-shattering. If that's what this thread has become about, you're blowing things entirely out of proportions.

Lynata said:

Because statting out a single NPC who isn't even an antagonist doesn't require as much thought as building a whole weapon mapping. That in its entirety is an interpretation. And adjusting one's stats because the numbers in actual gaming don't fit with one's aspired interpretation isn't an interpretation on its own either.

As for power creep, perhaps the original DH game designers didn't stat bolt weapons properly? You have heard how marines can shrug off wounds. But let's keep Unnatural T at x2. We know an Astartes Boltgun should be able to hurt an unarmoured marine, right? Likely even fatally. But at 1d10+5-8, you arrive at a loss of 8 wound points or so. He can stand that for 3 rounds and survive.

Thus what we have then isn't power creep but DH bolters not living up to the fluff.

Lynata said:

Exactly, in the fluff they don't, unlike in the crunch. I maintain that there are two Astartes: TT marines and novel marines and the latter are much more powerful than the former.

Lynata said:

Power creep!

The actual problem is that DH bolters/weapons are underpowered, not that Astartes Bolters are overpowered. Personally I'd give all DH weapons a blank +1 damage. Then I'd use the stats for special military grade bolters that require special training (available to SoBs, plus Inquisitors and high ranking guard officers at a xp cost) which I had posted pages ago. Slightly under Astartes level not noone can complain with too much credit as the coarse gradations of the TT allow for small enough differences in the finer graded RPG.

Lynata said:

If you're that much int splitting hairs, I have to ask you where it does say that? It surely was the intention but I have to find it explicitly spelled out. Not that it matters to me: a RPG system cannot and therefore does not have to try to cover all bases. It must rely on the GM to call the right shots occasionally.

Such as capping out SB on throwing rocks.

Lynata said:

Yep but about every 250th hitting shot will score RF twice, leading to 20+5.5+3 (with my adjustments +4) - 18/20 = about 10 points damage. That's probably about the proper toughness for a space marine who can shrug off normal lasgun attacks when unarmoured. It allows them to walk across a battlefied with impunity unless the other side has plasma, meltas, etc. which is as it should be.

A lasgun can mortally wound a marine. But it's more a 1 in 2500 or worse shot. I am fine with that. Any lesser probability would cap their open warfare capabilities significantly.

Lynata said:

Well, I would assume that for a 40K RPG you do extensive research and are already very familiar with all kinds of 40K stuff. That way you know how marines in the fluff diverge from marines in the TT and can do this difference justice.

Lynata said:

Who says it has to be 5cm longer though? 180cm trained woman and 210 genetically enhanced warrior who can beat off a man's head with bare hands. He's got a 5cm longer weapon which does exactly the same damage...

No, really, nobody cares about that as long as it's the tabletop where the details of the fluff don't matter to all that many people. In a rpg such a set-up will cause more disbelief though, sorry.

Lynata said:

To be honest, that sounds paranoid. When I read that blurb, I understand its intention immediately: to curb down on DH munchkins. DH had the power level it had a long time before DW. You can be sure that without that blurb a lot of DH players would have tried to get Astartes grade equipment in DH. Even now it is a consideration...

Really, do you think that the whole of FFG is sitting their and brain-storming how they can put down non-Space Marines? Tsk.

Lynata said:

It's a free world. DW weapons are much closer to studio material stat-wise than DH though. I assume you verified this for yourself right after the release of DW and have been using DW weapon stats in DH since then because you prefer to stick with what you've been used to from 20 years, right?

Oh my.

Lynata said:

But I have read dozens of people who have been running with DH PCs in their DW campaigns. FFG has made it clear that the games are not really truly integrated but has given hints how the games might be run together. Perfectly legitimate.

You say it's not compatible, I say with just a few adjustments, I could run a mixed game easily. The difference in power levels, btw, is significantly less than in a typical Rifts game and I have seen those work really well too.

Lynata said:

And DH is to blame for that, not DW. As for Final Sanction: that's all you got? A two point increase on chest armour of PA? That is what made Marine equipment jump? Tsk.

Lynata said:

Dear Lynata, for quite some time you have been unable to field everybody and his mum in the tabletop (nor Inquisitor, I suspect). So I suspect the concerns of them have not been high on their agenda, nor whether civilians in the Imperium can get their hands in cheap bolters or not. The studio material is not sufficient background material for an entire RPG. You need to fill in blanks.

But let's summarize:

Going by Gav Thorpe's interpretation DW Marines are rather to weak and not tough enough than too strong and too tough. The Toughness of DW Marines as is necessitates the damage output of DW Bolters as is. That in turn raises the question whether DH Bolters are too weak. A revision of stats must result in a clear: yes. They work within their setting but if one was to map studio material into unified 40K RP stats, you'd have to conclude that DH Bolters are severely underpowered. If S4 equals 1d10+9 (and it should according to the above argument) and S3 about 1d10+4, then DH Bolters need at least 2 additional damage points for a roughly proper mapping.

And still there is no pressing need to make non-Astartes bolters do exactly the same damage as DW bolters: they just need to be close enough to not be considered S3 (or S5).

So where's the problem?

Alex

Lynata said:

Yeah and that means Bolters need to have about 1d10+9, if we go by studio material. As for children firing bolters, if they had written in 2E that Ultramarines charge into battle on the back of cows, I wouldn't want 40K RP to adhere to that either.

No matter how nonsensical, if it's studio material, you submit it as evidence, Lynata? Sorry disbelief dispells that piece of evidence.

Alex

++++The difference in power levels, btw, is significantly less than in a typical Rifts game++++

Man, there is nothing wrong with 40krp that being more like Rifts wouldn't solve.

From the appreciation for awesome, through much larger hit point totals via art that is actually part of the design process rather than being something comissioned after the writing is finished.

Naked Marines are, incidentally, an MDC creature.

A Juicer isn't an MDC creature so why would a Marine be? Are you suggesting that you should be able to unload an assault rifle in a Marines face and have him laugh at you? Because as open minded as I am that would be silly.

The whole MDC mechanic was broken anyway, which was a pity because it was an okay game otherwise.

ak-73 said:

pfff, thats the straw that broke the camels back this is the person that claimed if a planet is described as being colder then absolute zero in the fluff then according to 40k it must be so.

++++A Juicer isn't an MDC creature so why would a Marine be? Are you suggesting that you should be able to unload an assault rifle in a Marines face and have him laugh at you?++++

Ah well, in the AW verse (especially the AW verse played with the palladium system, where the Tau probably have some kinda rail cannon that hits like a Boom Gun for 3D6*10 MD), Marines bones are laced with an adamantium/hyperceramic alloy. Most of their musculature has been surgically replaced by great bundles of vat grown artificial muscle more akin to the battletech myomar fibre bundles than anything found in a human. Their skin is essentially a mat of layer upon cross ply layer of carbon nanofibres.

In short, a Marine for the twenty first century, who wouldn't be afraid to go up against anything that video games or anime or blockbuster movies could throw at him.

You want to kill one bring an anti tank missile.

ak-73 said:

Honestly? Yes, I think it.

Dark Heresy is not a FFG game, but a Green Ronnin game: totaly different concept.

And to me seem FFG dislikes the Green Rorrnin comcept.

FFG dislikes story about normal men against monsters and demons: this is the original Dark Heresy concept.

They prefer epic story about incorruptible and invincible heroes, something that, to me, doesn't fit with a dark and grim world.

So, FFG made Ascension, where they had given Unnatural Trait to characters: BUT TRAITS WAS DESIGNED FOR MONSTERS ONLY!

The real FFG game is Deathwatch: basically, D&D40K.

Sorry for bad english.

AluminiumWolf said:

I like it. Almost a full conversion borg! Can I play one of those then?

(incidentally I stopped playing RIFTS when D6x10 was still big damage so 3D6x10 WTF?! You must be talking about a late model Glitter Boy yeah? Back in my uni days I was in one of the sort of groups that were all poor so we got REALLY good use out of the core book for most games we played. But now I get paid - yay)

Zakalwe said:

Nope. Glitter Boy Boom Gun always had 3d6x10. That's a starting characters armament. His power armours main body had what? 720 MDC? Another starting character might be a rogue scholar with a 45 MDC armour and a laser rifle that does 3d6 or 6d6.

But that can work too with mature enough players and a competent GM. In that light quibbling about 1 or 2 points Bolter damage is like... oh my.

Alex

PS And I won't even mention demi-gods.

deinol said:

...They could punch someone?

No thanks. Not for my game. Lack of granularlity in a very basic tabletop skirmish wargame aimed predominantly at teenagers does not have to mean the same lack of granularity for a RPG.

Sabashaw:

Hard challenges are fun... but the stats of a boltgun or power of a PC are not at all relevant to the games difficulty. PCs could be armed with thumb-mounted anti-matter machineguns, and a game can still be hard. It's the 'problems' that get bigger and more dangerous with more heroic games. The danger level and difficulty might be far harder than a DH game. DH groups deal with lesser demons and the odd genestealer. Kill-teams deal with demon hordes and tyranid invasions.

Aluminium Wolf:

An unhappy medium for you, but not for most, it seems. Marines are plenty awesome enough in DW, while still being believable and non-supernatural seeming. For me it's one step short of an actual superhero game, and that's where I like it.

Lynata:

For Marines to be 'worth it' as a fighting force, a single one should be able to take out 20 Guard without any real worry, at *least* (...but not a thousand, because that's getting pretty silly, Mr. Wolf...). The game stats need to support that, and a marine taking three turns of shooting with his bolt gun to take out 2 guardsmen makes for an RPG than in no way reflects Marines. It might nicely represent TT mechanics, but frankly 40k is a crap wargame anyway, and 20 years of 'fluff' are -for me- far more of an important standard to hold the game to. So for our marines to 'work' they actually need decent firearms. That's the way that canon has now moved, it seems. And it makes for a good game.

For someone so keen to swear by canon, you're then interpreting it in a manner that fits your own paradigms. There is tons of studio fluff that supports marines as being FAR superior to Joe average. It's impossible to say that writers are to blame for Marines being too powerful when that has been evolved from their appearances in box-out texts for years, coupled with the fact that GW signs off on those novels and RPGs. Novel Marines are canon, because they are approved as such. It's kinda poor sport to pin your flag to canon and then selectively ignore the HUGE chunks that don't fit your view.

And I think that the RPG view is fairly unbiased in the power level of Marines. Sure: FFG are going to cater to the people who buy the game, but they were still pretty restrained when it comes down to the crunch. We have marines who are heroic protagonists in heroic warrior sagas, which is the central theme of the game. It would suck to have heroic marines who couldn't take on four bandits armed with spoons, because it would not be in fitting with the scope of the RPG. And we don't have Aluminium Wolf Marines, either.

I don't know where you get the idea that DW has no insanity effects or corruption, but that's wrong. Both are detailed.

And of course the Guard can damage marines with their weapons: In a horde. And that's the only way to use them in an adventure, because if the 'encounter' with Marines is less than a squad of Guard, then it's not really worth picking up dice for in a heroic game. Kobolds can't hurt 20th level D&D parties on their own, either, after all, and I certainly wouldn't make a 20th level party go to dice on a wandering handful of goblins.

The current rules for both DW and DH are excellent in representing the game's themes (having run both). DH parties are a step up from CoC parties and in a dangerous universe full of unknown horrors, while DW characters are heroes of warrior sagas, carving themselves out a legend. Those are the game themes, and character strength needs to fit those themes. And it's impossible to judge how 'fair' and correct the designers were without proper play using those themes, just as it would be foolish to consider the damage of superpower in a d20 superhero game 'too much' in comparison to a gritty game of E6 3.5

You're really doing your best to selectively cite canon about how 'wrong' the game is without actually playing and experiencing those game themes yourself. I think black pudding is pretty 'wrong' on paper, but try it as part of a full English breakfast and it all makes sense.

The game lines are only vaguely compatible. In the same way that WoD games are. ie: They share a system. I don't see that as meaning that they have to be *balanced* and work in perfect harmony, because that was never the design brief. It was never intended for a Werewolf, Vampire and a Mage to buddy up and adventure together, and it was never intended for a RT, Acolyte and a Astartes to buddy up and party together, either.

Children doing bolter drill...sure... because drilling with a weapon isn't *firing* it. Loading, clearing stoppages, firing procedures, reloading... that's weapon drill. Assuming we don't mean parade drill, which is just being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

AluminiumWolf said:

Agreed. But it's perhaps more obtuse to argue about the system mechanics and fluff of an RPG without having run or even played it, too. Kinda like those people who sit in bars, solving the political issues of the Middle East, based on what they read in a newspaper. You can never understand a concept fully without experiencing it for yourself.

Lynata said:

We're hindered by the raw mechanics of the TT, not necessarily the fluff. Because the TT fluff actually backs up the DW interpretation of the Adeptus Astartes, with them bringing whole planets to their knees with just a Company strength force (3rd edition codex, page 3), and really.. any other bit of fluff you find in the codices on Space Marines, even when they're losing they're making a hard fight of it that far outstrips what a regular human could do.

And unfortunately for us, it's the mechanics of the TT that you appear to be fixated on, despite all your touting of the superiority of the official GW canon.

Lynata said:

They have insanity effects, thankyou very much, they're just different. And as for Corruption... Abaddon the Despoiler, 10,000 years and not a single apparent mutation. And he's not the only ancient Chaos Marine to be largely, if not entirely, free from mutation. I'm frankly glad of the way they made Corruption work for Marines too, because it would be the height of lame for Brother Johnson to sprout some tentacles just because he spent too much time on the Acheros Salient.

Lynata said:

Yes, that me and No-Hero were arguing that maybe they had higher quality or special materials. Specifically, and more accurately, we were trying to use our (well, my) admitedly novice knowledge of ballistics and firearms to provide you with a logifical and scientific explanation as to why Astartes Bolters were better than their mortal counterparts. In the strictest sense, yes we were trying to "justify" it. In reality, at the time, we were just trying to give you a reasoned explanation for the disparity.

Incedently, it was after several pages of trying to get my point accross, and your continued obstinant and frankly rude behavior, that caused me to lose the last of my good will and patience with you. Hence all the subsequent rudeness (cause I frankly can't give a **** unless you can show me why I should again). And even now, despite that, I'll still admit that you're a great contributor to the forums... as long as the subject isn't Space Marines.

Oh yeah, just because you say, "it's alright for you to enjoy the game however you want", doesn't really make the accusation that we're playing, "fakey-fakey fantasy Marines" any less insulting.

All Space Marines are fantasy marines. I don't know of a single real one.

As such it's up to you. If you like canon, that's cool. If you don't then you are a heretic.... ZAP ZAP ZAP!

....just kidding, honestly, they're all fantasy, even my apparrently woosy ones.

But they ARE ALL AWESOME.

TL:DR

But I've got something to say on the subject. I can categorically say that Space Marines are vastly better than humans, basically anywhere.

However, I believe the point is that if you are going to play to play mixed campaign you have to deal with it. Fine if you are starting out, and adept or inquisitor can be great at what they do, a Vindicare is still dynamite and balanced quite well for a DW team, and a Primaris Psyker, well depending on the rules sets you use is still probably still fine. As a GM you might need to be wary, allow the non or low combat characters to keep their heads down when DW scale combat kicks off, and overall switch the focus away from combat.

But if you are adding DW characters to an existing acolyte characters then you might need to do work. No one want's to go down the Rifts route of having a character they've played for several years be rendered obsolete by a new starting book. So a Death Cultist is probably fine, so long as some talant or something is knocked up to allow them to dodge hordes. A storm trooper might be fine if you are relying on influence resources, but if the character started as a shooty character then they might need some special subdermal armour, bone lacing, power armour and a heavy weapon to make it worth it etc.

AluminiumWolf said:

Uh, no. I assimilate any new information as long as it comes from GW, regardless of whether I like it or not. Anything else gets assimilated as long as it doesn't break aforementioned foundation (and this is where you may claim I am operating on personal preference - but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, as I am argueing on the basis of GW fluff here).

AluminiumWolf said:

Could you stop trying to twist my words, please? I have (a) never said Marine guns are not slightly larger, I said it has obviously no effect on their potency as far as GW is concerned. And I have (b) never wanted for Marines to not be "awesome", I said that the same rules should apply for everyone when you are playing one and the same game. Because - better sit down for a moment there - Marines may not be the only ones who do "awesome" stuff.

ak-73 said:

No, I think people sat together and went "how can we make Marines awesome" without thinking about anyone else, breaking established canon in the process. To be fair, this happens to a lot of BL novel authors, too - when they write a book about one thing they don't always read up on all the details about everything else that appears in it.

ak-73 said:

I think you are forgetting various traits that can be added to deliver a way more devastating punch if you want to. I'd be fine with the Inquisitor stats (would have to read up on how Strength actually works there), though, if it means I can get the same boltgun.

ak-73 said:

Does anyone here really have a group where Marines go into battle without a helmet? Aside from that, suffering damage without any effect on one's capability is shrugging off.

ak-73 said:

Finer gradations such as GW's Inquisitor rulebook? Or the, frankly, very clear usage of the term "equal" in the fluff?

As far as the "civilian bolters" are concerned - yes, it does disturb me and it takes away from the setting and the status of these weapons. This part is opinion, though, and not the point of this debate.

ak-73 said:

Thing is, these aren't "old rules", though. They are what is valid now. Besides we are talking about the fluff, not the rules, though it's much the same there.

ak-73 said:

The sheer need for GW people to state that licensee publications have no effect on studio canon makes it clear to me that it is intended to be fixed. Regardless: Does this mean we can at least agree on the basis that you want to play FFG's interpretation whereas I simply prefer GW's original world?

ak-73 said:

Weaker weapons taking the ability to be a valuable addition to a bunch of Marines from non-Astartes characters is, in my opinion, a major problem with crossovers. Regardless if it's Marine flamers magically doing +4 damage or whatever. I am simply talking mostly about boltguns because here studio canon offers the most official sources exposing the RPG's interpretation as flawed.

ak-73 said:

Which results in the same outcome, and which is why I have previously said that for crossovers, the best solution would be to buff every DH/RT gear "ported over" into DW. Another option would be to, of course, to adjust Unnatural Toughness, which strikes me as a flawed concept in general, regardless of who gets it.

ak-73 said:

And that's where you are wrong. Because there are no one novel Marines. One author makes them be 3 meters big, another writes them as 2. In one novel, they wade through a barrage of bolter fire and come out without scars, in another they get felled by lasguns and splinter rifles. One book specifically desribed Marine bolters as having little to no recoil (Guardsman firing a bolt pistol a Marine handed him), whereas others claim they'd rip off the arm of lesser men. Consistency? I think not. Which is why I tend to look at GW canon first and foremost.

ak-73 said:

DH Core Rulebook, page 195, last paragraph of the RF text box. And it's less about splitting hairs, it's me not agreeing with your claim.

I could also say that your attempt at debunking the Marines' invulnerability with Righteous Fire is splitting hairs, after all. With Righteous Fire, a Marine could be killed by a kid throwing a rock. Just needs the kid to be really, really lucky, no? However, I am discussing weapon properties as they normally work.

ak-73 said:

As I said, same barrel size. How many cubic meters of armour do you want to slap around it? And it still won't affect projectile damage.

ak-73 said:

Only on the basis that Marines absolutely have to have better stuff, which in itself is contradicting official studio material, rendering the entire argument invalid because you are only going by what you like best.

And again, it's not just tabletop fluff.

ak-73 said:

No, because I am used to the idea that all P&P RPGs come with less lethal combat in order to avoid people dying to a single bad dice roll. If DH characters would start out with power armour right away, maybe the weapon stats would have looked differently, but that is not how the game was designed. Instead we got Inquisition meets Cyberpunk, and people run around with slug revolvers. However, the designers still wanted the 40k signature bolt weapons in there, so they invented the "civilian" grade, and now all non-Astartes are forever doomed to suffer from this decision.

Well, except the Vindicare with his special bolt pistol.

ak-73 said:

One of several jumps. You do not want to acknowledge it for what it is?

ak-73 said:

Problem is, there were no blanks. Else we would not have contradictions now.

ak-73 said:

The problem is that it's still not "equal" as the fluff claims. Why should I surrender the few canonically equal areas that would allow non-Astartes combat characters to be useful to a crossover game? You say it conflicts with believability, I say your interpretation conflicts with mine. So here we are.

ak-73 said:

Disbelief based on personal preferences. Okay, if you're really just picking and choosing which of my studio citations you acknowledge, I guess we can stop right here, because we'll never get to an end. So, once more, and regardless of our personal reasons to do so, can we agree on you playing FFG's 40k and me playing GW's?

Siranui said:

"Give me a hundred Space Marines. Or, failing that, give me a thousand other troops."
- Rogal Dorn, Primarch of the Imperial Fists

Of course you are right in pointing out that a Marine taking three turns to kill two Guardsman does not exactly represent the fluff correctly. That said, the same could be said for SoB, Arbites or other Guardsman. Humans are frail creatures, and if you are not a Space Marine, almost any weapon of the 41st millennium should kill you pretty quickly. So why is it that only Astartes should have a right to finish off their enemies quickly?

Siranui said:

Again, I am not disputing Astartes superiority in general, I am disputing that it seems to be applied to every single aspect, including the ones where it makes no sense or where it outright contradicts studio material. I have provided canon quotes regarding the equality of equipment. If you think there is tons of studio material overruling this, cite one such statement. All I see here is people argueing based on their favorite novel/comic/RPG, at times attempting to justify the contradictions with terms such as "cinematic" (which is pure opinion) or real world physics (whilst lacking the relevant data, so again being opinionated).

Siranui said:

Do I really need to bust out the quotes from Gav Thorpe and George Mann a third time? Does nobody read these posts by accident, or are they ignored? :/ Novel Marines are not canon, and neither are these RPGs.

Siranui said:

Aye. Heroic protagonists exist outside the Astartes as well, though. The "killing a Hive Tyrant in melee, single-handedly" kind of heroic people. And though that is clearly over the top (despite actually being studio canon and not just some random novel!), you surely see the direction.

Siranui said:

"There are no direct game effects of Corruption until the Battle-Brother's Purity Threshold of 100 is reached, at which time he is removed from play as his taint is too great for him to continue to serve the Emperor."

So, unlike in DH, nothing happens until the point where a character would be removed in DH as well. As for Insanity, yes, it indeed comes with a couple rules - though they are notably more lenient than the normal penalties. And whilst I have to say that I agree that an insane Marine sounds very odd, the same goes for certain DH careers who are just as heavily indoctrinated.

Siranui said:

Hordes don't make a lasgun mechanically better, though. They just circumvent the laws of physics to make for a slightly more plausible game.

I agree on the idea of a heroic game, though. All I'm saying is that other careers (and no, not just SoB, though it's certainly easier to justify here from a realism PoV) may deserve heroic games just as much. I dislike people comparing characters and equipment on a 1:1 basis even though it seems clear that DW is a "heroic" game (with its rules engineered that way) whereas the others are not.

Siranui said:

I'm not selective. I am "GW > all" - not much different from the posters in this thread wo go like "DW > all" or "this novel > all". And I am having fun in my current games. I just can't stand the "talking down", and I am disappointed by the lack of proper crossover rules.

Siranui said:

Just that the term "bolter drill" in the very same codex (I believe it was Captain Cortez' squad ability) as well as the DW RPG means something else. I also don't see how people should suffer severe injuries during loading procedures, or why that would make such a superb test for judging Astartes recruits.

Blood Pact said:

Unfortunately for you, I have argued way more on the basis of fluff texts than TT stats - the latter just served as backup for such obscure cases as an Astartes bolt pistol doing more damage than a Guard HB. Unfortunately for me, people seem to be ignoring these quotes (or outright declare them invalid on the basis of their own opinions).

By the way, here's one more, from the official GW website:

"As the Chamber Militant of the galaxy-spanning Ecclesiarchy, the Sisters of Battle are fierce warriors that are equals to their brother Space Marines."

Blood Pact said:

And I, based on my admittedly novice knowledge of ballistics and firearms as well as the fluff on how bolters actually work, have given you logical and scientific reasoned explanation for why the disparity does not have to exist, making GWs official canon sound less stupid for those that want to adhere to it.

And I can't remember ever being rude to you, except perhaps in that instance where you have named me a liar and I called you out on it, demanding proof for that accusation I have yet to see. I am obviously quite stubborn, yes, but rude? Yet, we better let other posters judge our behavior, for it is often the case that one may have trouble judging himself.

Blood Pact said:

But there are different interpretations of any faction in 40k, depending on the novel you read or the game you play. It's not insulting if it applies to everyone, isn't it? I'm simply argueing for everyone having a right for either a heroic or a gritty approach instead of Astartes and non-Astartes being permanently locked in one of these themes. Which would also make for better crossovers.

Sheesh, quotewar. Can't we just agree to disagree? It can't be so impossible to come to some sort of conclusion when the sources we are basing our arguments on are clearly not the same ones, so it boils down on whether you hold GW over FFG or FFG over GW. No?

Lynata said:

Where does it says that they have the same barrel size?

I thought we had established that equal doesn't mean the same.

The rest of the quote from the GW website, it's pretty important for context:

As the Chamber Militant of the galaxy-spanning Ecclesiarchy, the Sisters of Battle are fierce warriors that are equals to their brother Space Marines. What the Sisters lack in genetic enhancement they make up for in faith and devotion. No one is more devoted to the cause and cult of the Emperor than they.

The highlighted passage above means they are not the same. They share an equality of spirit and drive.

Any Sister of Battle claiming they are the equal to an Astartes smacks of profound hubris bordering on heresy to me. How would someone so devoted to a god consider themselves the equal to those who have that same god's blood flowing through their veins?

Lynata said:

Neither of which matter cause both are no longer valid as both are writers and are freelancers (at least in Thorpes case couldn't find anyhting about Mann) and do not set the overall rules for the ip. Your appeal to authority is invalid because we have Alan Merrett who is in charge of the the ip currently as saying this is how Marines are supposed to be portrayed once again read the inscription on deathwatch by Alan Merrett. The rules for the ip could have changed in the last three years and Thorpe would have no control over it. But even if they didn't Alan can logically vet a book as being cannon. Granted in the discreption he does say that they had to change somethings from GW's original plan but the whole idea for the tier system was GW's idea as was Dark Heresy. In fact in the inquisiter's handbook was written by the same people who did Dark Heresy so according to you it very much constitutes as cannon. DW and RT being the only ones not designed and written by GW. In fact according to your very rules of cannon the difference between bolters as depicted in the Inquisters handbook is cannon because it was developed by the people from GW.

Thank you ItsUncertainWho, for making the point I have tried (and apparently failed) to make on numerous occasions. Equal does not mean the same. It's a fundamental basis for almost every constitution and religion in the world that all men are created equal, and yet some are smart, some are dumb. All have equal rights and opportunity, yet some who work hard their whole lives are left with nothing and some are born into such obscene priviledge that they may not know what deprivation means. Equal, like any and all words, is entirely contextual, and I personally find the basis for your entire arguement (the initial quote from the SoB Codex stating they have gear the equal of any Space Marine Chapter) is flawed for that very reason. Your universe is not the GW universe, because your basing off of a single quote from the Codex saying that the SoB are equal when they are not.

I did provide examples: Grey Knights have gear unique to their chapters, such as forearm mounted Storm Bolters, and I know for a fact that several other SM Codices have gear unique to their chapters - so the SoB have these as well? No. Therefore it's impossible for them to be equal, as clearly and conclusively proven by several GW sources (the various Codices). My biggest problem, in terms of countering you with quotes, is that I don't have the Codices on me, I've only read them on multiple occasions, and so can't provide verbatim quotations with page references (as you have almost always provided, cudos by the way).

So the other posters are correct (to a point, I wouldn't take it quite as fervently as they have made the accusations, but they are not entirely wrong) in that you ignore other GW sources that are just as valid as the one you cling to. There is no conclusive proof on the matter in any fluff that is up to date (the Bolter drill you mentioned involving children is from a 2E Ultramarine Codex - Outdated since the Ultramarines are now on 6E) and many Codices published since the SoB Codex (and therefore more valid as they adhere to GW's current view of the Universe) I'm sure contain an abundance of Fluff saying how the Space Marines are the best in every way. Do I think the SoB should have the same Bolters as SM's? No, and I never will, because despite a (since outdated) piece of fluff saying all bolters use .75 calibre shells, it doesn't make sense to me. That's opinion, but since there is no (currently valid) official fluff that contradicts my real-world knowledge of physics, I can feel confident in sharing that.

Long story short, I think you're being overly stubborn. No matter how much you prefer one source over another, I can't find it to agree with you because your points, while not countered by quotes due to my lack of books, simply don't override the rest of the GW Universe (the one outside the SoB). My experience, before you bring it up, is almost entirely based upon Codexes, I have only read two novels and been playing the RPG for a few months with nearly a decade of tabletop play preceding that, so my veiws are not based solely upon the FFG version of the universe.

*Pardon my spelling, I'm sick and still acclimatising to a browser with no spell check and a new keyboard, making my typing sub-par by any account.