Lynata said:

It was made and based on 2nd edition Epic; that's old background by any definition.

Lynata said:

And where exactly did you infer that from? Or are we just bouncing between extremes because the internet doesn't tolerate a middle ground?

Fundamentally, a weapon that is designed to fire extremely rare (and stolen) ammunition will never be produced on a large scale. That doesn't mean that production is done in the back of the workshop with scraps - as far as I'm concerned, any weapon capable of using Astartes ammunition, and pretty much any Best-quality Bolter (which in terms of rarity and quality, though not game mechanics, is where I consider the Godwyn-Tadcocke to sit) to be an individually-crafted precision machined tool of destruction. Fykos Forge as a whole has a reputation for power and quality, and is one of the major manufacturing concerns on that planet (and, indeed, a major manufacturer within the Sector), so they're hardly just back-alley munitionsmiths.

Lynata said:

Lynata said:

Rule one of trying to rule the Imperium... don't annoy the guys with all the Titans. Every legitimate manufactorum, and every location capable of producing wargear like that will be under the control and supervision of the Adeptus Mechanicus... who have always maintained a considerable degree of autonomy from the Imperium in as many ways as possible, especially during periods such as the Age of Apostasy. Butting heads with the Fabricator General is hardly the way to make things happen.

Goge Vandire's power rivalled that of the Emperor only in his delusional mind - the Imperium all but ceased functioning under his reign, the Astartes largely shunned his regime, the Mechanicus remained as isolated as possible, and the Emperor's domain fragmented into petty empires. I doubt his ability to strong-arm the Mechanicus into making them break with traditions five millennia old.

Lynata said:

Fine. Are you also going to listen to the Uplifting Primer and start complaining that Orks, Eldar, Tyranids and Tau are too powerful?

It's an in-character source, which is inherently subjective, particularly in the Imperium where knowledge is heavily restricted and frequently occluded by propaganda.

Plus, the Munitorum Manual is hardly flawless, claiming as it does approximately 200 shots per lasgun charge pack, when sources before (Inquisitor, Imperial Armour books) and after (40kRP books) have put the standard lasgun charge pack at 60 shots.

Lynata said:

Which would be fine, if that was all... but you kind of need the handle to go around that... and it doesn't account for the length of the shells either.

Lynata said:

Ah, the old focus on one thing to the exclusion of all else trick... the penalty covers a variety of factors.

Those penalties exist for mortals using Astartes wargear, covering a range of factors. Trying to boil it down to one thing so you can pick it apart just seems petty, IMO.

Lynata said:

Fine... but at that point, it's not a standard weapon, and it may impede the ability of the Astartes to wield it (their gauntlets impede fine manual dexterity).

There are rules, and there are exceptions to those rules... there always are. But exceptions should always be in the extreme minority, or they cease to be exceptional... I don't honestly feel that "equipping the Orders Militant of the Adepta Sororitas" is sufficiently small-scale to be simply an exception to the rule.

Lynata said:

N0-1_H3r3 said:

So this automatically disqualifies it, despite no newer source invalidating it? You're removing a lot of fluff from the setting if you only go by 5E (and, of course, the 1st edition of DH/RT/DW).

N0-1_H3r3 said:

So where else? It's an illegal weapon, which means its producers will be extremely careful when and where to build it, who will be able to see them doing so, and how many people get involved in the project. The penalties for discovery are quite severe, which is why I believe the crafters would be as discreet as possible about it.

And yes, in this instance I deliberately went to the extreme to fight fire with fire. The very core of the entire debate is about bouncing between extremes (human <-> Marine) with, as suggested by the rules and by yourself, no middle ground (such as power-armoured people or unaugmented Scouts) whatsoever.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Vandire didn't care much, obviously.

And you are conflicting yourself. The AdMech cannot "isolate itself as much as possible" whilst simultaneously trying to enforce some alleged regulations on Imperial manufactoriums. Which are, as of yet, still a mere theory.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Which only gives it more weight when even Imperial propaganda admits that "Astartes-level" boltguns can be utilized by normal people. Or rather that there simply is no difference.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Power settings. As is also pointed out in the books.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Ordinary handgun grips have a thickness of about 3-4 cm. Sounds more than enough to me.

And bolter shells aren't that long... Not only did GW produce official replicas at one point, even DW clearly shows you how short they actually are. Also note that boltgun magazines stack their bolts in pairs, which makes them thicker than they would need to be if you'd opt for less ammunition. Now take a boltgun magazine, imagine it to be half as thick and compare it to the grip.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

So debunking all factors is a no-go, regardless of how silly they are? And yes, it is petty. The entire argument is petty. I still feel passionate about it, and I am convinced that the fluff outside of this RPG line is backing up my point, though.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

I never said they would have the exaact same weapons* - I was ranting about the supposed disparity between "Astartes-level" and "everyone else" which isn't backed up by anything outside DH. In fact, numerous sources of fluff directly contradict this idea.

*: For example, to me it makes most sense to see the Godwyn-De'az as a variant of the Marines' Godwyn pattern (the name has to come from somewhere, right?) scaled down a bit to be slightly lighter and easier to control by power armoured humans. Basically downsizing the grip and reducing the amount of armour plating that makes the Marine boltgun so heavy and large (and resilient in battle).

--- Forum ate the quotes from this point onward - apologies for the following part being slightly harder to read. ---

"I stick to the background 99% of the time... I just don't believe in doing so when preferable alternatives exist. In this case, I consider giving the Astartes the shiniest toys the Mechanicus is willing to provide a preferable alternative to trying to homogenise bolters, power armour, etc into an undifferentiated mass."

Of course we all have our preferences, and nobody can be faulted for them. There are things I would like to be different in the fluff as well. I just deem it problematic when one claims his or her preference is the truth when it conflicts with the established setting.

I feel obliged to point out that now it is you who is jumping from one extreme to the other without considering the middle ground that already exists in the fluff, though. There are more than enough differences between both bolters and power armour to make them unique without artificially creating a ridiculous gap. There is, in fact, much more to a boltgun and to a suit of power armour than just damage stats and AP value.

"Your exact words were "violating the existing background"... I think that speaks for itself."

Oh, yes, and I stand by them. This does not mean that I "condemn it as a grievous injustice", as you have twisted these words. I like this franchise. I like it a lot, else I would not play it, buy almost every book, write stuff myself, or post here. Actually, the very fact that I am putting so much energy into this discussion should be proof enough to validate this.

I simply maintain that there are things that cannot be explained and mistakes that should be corrected - or, if this does not happen, at least a certain amount of understanding between the majority of players.

Lynata said:

Automatically disqualifies? No. But everything exists in context. Background written in 1990 exists in a different context to that written in 1999 or that written last year. Attempting to reconcile differences between background written a decade ago and that written a week ago is something that frequently clashes with differences in context. Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader was written with different assumptions, premises and quirks than material written 20 years later, in part because of intent (Rogue Trader was a sandbox with a vague do-anything background that was as much a loving parody of science fiction as it was a setting in its own right... in the decades since, the setting has taken on a life of its own, and gained elements that were never intended to be part of 40k in the beginning (such as Chaos - if you can find a copy of the old RT rulebook, the absence of Chaos seems to be a glaring omission given the setting as it is now).

This can be seen in the Horus Heresy novels, for example, where authors are coming across elements of the background devised as in-jokes and off-the-cuff additions to the setting years before and finding that having a Primarch named after a 19th century poet, or a group of warriors known as The Space Wolves (or even just Space Marines) detract from the gravity they want to impart to the 40k universe's "mythology". Puns and in-jokes are fine in some contexts, less appropriate in others.

Changes exist in specific contexts too - the Horus Heresy itself, now the subject of a millions-selling line of novels which has featured on the New York Times Bestsellers list several times, was created to explain why the Adeptus Titanicus boxed set contained two sets of plastic Imperial titans... from humble beginnings brought about by practical necessities (they couldn't afford to make another, different, set of plastic titans), to setting-defining element and giant cash cow for GW.

Looking for, and trying to understand context is, I feel, an absolute necessity when it comes to working with the 40k background. Nearly 29 years of background, the combined efforts of dozens if not hundreds of individual writers... trying to fit it all together otherwise can cause all manner of headaches.

Lynata said:

What, are you going to tell the expendable masses of the Imperial Guard that there are better weapons in the Imperium that they're not allowed to have? That's going to be great for morale...

Lynata said:

And which also don't exist consistently across the setting; in Inquisitor, for example, multiple power settings existed on only one of the three patterns of Lasgun depicted (and a higher rate of fire existed only on a completely different pattern). It turns up in the novels and those two in-character background books as a standard element, but I don't think I've ever encountered the idea of lasguns universally having variable settings outside of those sources.

Lynata said:

"Mistakes" implies that it's objectively a flaw, rather than simply something that some people dislike. Given the people involved here - people I have in many cases worked with, and whom I respect (even if I don't always agree with), people who have in many cases long histories of contribution to the setting (several of whom are veterans of GW's design studio - for example, Andy Chambers worked on Rites of Battle, and Andy Hoare has worked on several books in all three game lines) and who know the setting extremely well - I have no reason to assume that this is an error.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Absolutely. This, of course, includes the notion that not everything is invalid simply because it is old.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

This may depend on your perspective. Given how Space Marines in particular are commonly portrayed as the superhuman Angels of Death, it would really not be surprising to have propaganda claim that Astartes-level equipment is unsuitable for them - when in reality it's just more difficult and costly to produce. After all, this is what propaganda is all about, twisting the truth to make it more amicable to the masses.

Ironically we now have in-universe sources claim that there is little difference between boltguns - and the Deathwatch book claiming there is, both by an extremely strong wording of the rules (it felt as if the writer really liked the Marines) as well as the claim that, in fact, Marine bolters are considered sacred and it is thusly forbidden to touch them. Great for morale?

Furthermore it is also ironic that the same taboo seems nonexistent for the weapons of the Sororitas - you know, the physical embodiment of the real religion. Then again, according to the stats in IH and BoM those are of the same power as what Underhive gangs roam the streets with, so I guess that's small wonder.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

That depends on whether you define the path that the RPG has taken in this aspect as a retcon or not. If it is - and GW actually continues on it - then I shall retract my claim and settle for "disliking" these changes. If it is not then I do have the right to claim it a mistake to unnecessarily move away from the established setting. Does that sound fair enough?

Surely you have to agree that the RPG makes a lot of things look different than we (at least I - and I've stated a lot of reasons for that) are used to?

So much has changed since I got into the TT. I think a lot of the Rabid Space Marine fans forget that Space Marines were just one of many armies, and not just for the game, but for the imperium, and that all of those armies were arguably equal in there ability to destroy one another. I played what was then called the "Witch Hunter" army, I am not sure what it is called in 4th and 5th, but back then the sister's were a lot closer to a space-marine, then what is depicted now.

Lynata said:

I do, but I don't consider it unexpected or unwelcome - whenever you look at things in more detail, things look different to the broader view. This was true in WFRP, and I expected it to be the case with 40kRP from the first day it was announced, and got what I was expecting and more with the first playtest package, back in summer 2005.

When you look at things through the lens of a wargame, looking at one side of the big picture, it conveys one view of things... when you zoom in close, to look at individual characters in an RPG, it conveys another, both through narrower focus (individuals rather than armies) and broader scale (the civilisation, not just warfare).

@Nimon:

Well, to be fair, the tabletop has to sacrifice a certain amount of accuracy for the sake of balancing. You'd probably never see the Imperial Army enter the field of battle with a single piece of artillery, for example. That said, DW seems to fall into the other end of the extreme, with a single squad of Marines beating back entire Hive armies. If this were an accurate representation of the fluff the Imperium likely would not be in the situation it is presented to be in. Tyranid invasion? No problem, send a company of Marines, they'll take care of it. Tau threatening the Imperium's borders? Well alright, an entire Chapter should be enough to eradicate them. They are simply on a completely different scale - interestingly including the Deathwatch Veteran NPC we got in "Purge the Unclean".

Which led me to believe that Deathwatch as a game takes place on a completely different scale to make it look and feel more epic (compare "300" to "Rome"). And, of course, to deal with the problematic Unnatural traits.

[edit] @N0-1_H3r3:

"I do, but I don't consider it unexpected or unwelcome"

This obviously depends on how you felt about the faction thusly nerfed. If the same thing would have happened to the Marines, half the fandom woult be in outrage . Added to that comes that the Sororitas have a long history of being beaten down in power level, especially if you look at Rogue Trader which had them police the Astartes(!).

"When you look at things through the lens of a wargame, looking at one side of the big picture, it conveys one view of things... when you zoom in close, to look at individual characters in an RPG, it conveys another, both through narrower focus (individuals rather than armies) and broader scale (the civilisation, not just warfare)."

Zooming in closer should never turn things around, though, merely provide more detail. And we already had that sort of zoom from lots of codex fluff, novels, WD articles and other official sources. DH/DW isn't a magnification lens, it's a different pair of glasses altogether. Some like it, some don't.

At least regarding this aspect. Obviously I still enjoy the entire line as a whole, even when I'm ranting about details.

We'll see what the future brings.

Lynata said:

I make it a point of pride to like all the factions in 40k... there isn't a particular group, species, faction or organisation in the 40k universe that I don't find interesting in some way.

And to be honest, I see the history of the Sororitas/Astartes matter to be more because the Astartes got more powerful (considering how they changed even within Rogue Trader - by today's standards, they were frankly feeble back in the original rulebook - Str 4, T3, 4+ save, characteristic limits for heroes still the same as normal humans... a few years later, they were revised quite extensively, and their background heavily added to... and then 2nd edition happened) rather than the Sororitas getting less powerful.

I take it the slighting boltgun remark was made in a moment of heated temper, then.

I suppose we simply disagree on where we would like the factions to be - I do remember your comments on the Sisters in "Redemption Corps".

My goodness, I look away for a day and there's two more pages to the thread... so much to read, bleh.

Lynata, I really think you're looking at all this the wrong way. And consequently making mountains out of mole hills.

What's important I think, is to look at the setting. In DH, the Adepta Sororitas are awesome. Blood of the Martyrs does a great job (from the cover and onward) of presenting SoBs as the great characters they are.

Whether the statistics don't match up to your expectations or in comparison to DW (a different setting, with a completely different power scale) does not change this fact.

Within the DH setting, Sisters of Battle are one of the most iconic and powerful choices you can make for a combat oriented character. They kick ass, and look good doing it. Whether their bolters do "Astartes" level damage is really quite secondary to that.

As always, I have no real respect for fluff discussions. The fluff is 30 years old and a patchwork of different contributions, and even re-envisioning, leaving it a contradictory mess or a great idea pile, all depending on your point of view. Leave as much of it at the door as possible, and look at it within the context of the RPG setting here and now. And in DH, as of the release of Blood of Martyrs, Sisters of Battle are looking very, very good.

Considering the forum we are on, I think that's the most relevant thing.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

I have not read IA 2, so didn't know about the initial booster charge. Thanks for clearing that out.

Still, noting how much astartes grade bolt weapon weights it could have conventional propellant charge equal to something like modern 12,7mm HMG and the recoil would still not be unbearable. Especially since the weight of the bolter is so much that any normal, unaugmented human would have to fire it from supported position anyway.

Lynata said:

Hmm don't have that article. I also forget what the issue was.

In any case, as for the Lexicanum yes you could edit it, but unless you're providing a valid scource others will take it down again. I doubt wiki wars are common there, as the information seems pretty constant.

And in this case the scource cited was WH40k 3rd edition rulebook page 60. I can't check that, but if you do, and it's bogus, let us know. Otherwise I will assume this is correct information.

Bladehate said:

The power scale is exactly what I am talking about. If people can agree that DW cannot be directly compared to DH due to a different narrative style, then I am content - it's just that some people seemed to have taken a look at DW's boltguns and take that as proof that Astartes-level gear has to be superior in every regard, which I deem as (a) a distortion of fluff and (b) downplaying other factions because it seems to be a matter of pride. Granted, in a way it's a matter of pride for me as well, only that I am going by what I've read in the official sources for decades. You could say that I'm taking a stand at this new idea in the hopes of it not catching on, futile as that may be.

And no ... I really don't want Sororitas boltguns in DH to become as powerful as bolters in DW, as I think that would be overkill. However, in the sense of DH and DW being two different styles of narration I am of the opinion that all DH/RT characters entering a Deathwatch game need their guns to be "buffed" appropriately, just like the bolters of DW-Marines entering a DH/RT game have to be "nerfed" - not only due to balancing but also to conform to the relative narrative style ("realistic" vs "epic").
Even DH itself seems to agree to this, given that the two Astartes-level bolters we have seen in the official books so far "only" use 2d10 damage, which makes their average damage equal to other bolters but gives them an edge in having a double chance to trigger Righteous Fury.

As a sidenote: We actually did houserule the Godwyn-De'az to be slightly better, though, as we thought it to be way too close to "street level" weapons - it is essentially a good quality standard boltgun in the core rulebook. Taking a look at the Inquisitor's Handbook, it mentions that the Sacristan is a pistol variant of the G-D, so we gave the latter 1d10+6 and a penalty of -10 BS to users below SB 4 as well. I think this slight difference makes it feel much more unique.
After looking at the Locke pattern in RT we also gave it Full Auto, though this (in combination with a new recoil rule ) is something we added to all basic boltguns capable of Semi-Auto fire.

Friend of the Dork said:

Phew, no, I only have the 5th edition one. But note that only the first sentence is actually sourced, the "heavy infantry" part is not. It seems to have been added as user conclusion, which is why it also does not appear on the German version of the article.

No biggie, anyways, I just wanted to point at the name being quite "Tyranid-themed".

Lynata said:

Lynata, Bolt Weapons are overpowered in Deathwatch (from a game mechanic's perspective). I am going to run Bolt weapons about 2 points lower than RAW. That makes the Astartes Boltgun not that much better than the Angelus Bolter. If you're still put off, decrease all DW Bolt weapons by 3 in damage and add 2 to the Angelus, done. You're neither breaking DW nor DH with that move. If the Heavy Bolter is a concern, give it the +2 damage in DH too but cut its ROF for both games to 6.

A quick way to fix the differences.

Alex

I think the Bolt weapons are way underpowered in DH and overpowered in DW when compared to other weapons. I solved the problem with house rule that boosts all Plasma weapons with Felling (1) quality and all Melta weapons with Felling (2) quality.

Then I boosted the "mortal" bolter damage up to RT Storm-bolter equivalent. Now the Astartes bolt guns are still a bit more powerfull than the ones carried by Arbiters, but not ridiculously powerfull when compared to Plasma and Melta weapons.

Oh yes, and I give Sisters Astartes grade Bolt Weapons... But Sisters being only human-size they can wield them ONLY when wearing Power Armor.

Some interesting ideas - I did not know for sure Astartes bolters were even too powerful in DW itself (though I did wonder about their damage output being quite similar to plasma and melta weapons) as I now have read the book, but not played in a game of Deathwatch itself.

I'm a little hesitant to boost bolt weapons for DH/RT as they seem to work fine where they are, even though it's a bit "awkward" that their damage is not notably higher than a lasgun's when hitting unarmoured targets (though this may just be the result of an undeservedly bad reputation for the lasgun). Given that DW does take place on a different scale, perhaps it would be good to just "buff" or "debuff" the weapons accordingly when the characters transition from one game into the other so they dish out the same damage and conform to the pre-RPG bolt weapon fluff again. The other options the two of you mentioned are also interesting, though I'm somewhat wary of the Felling quality - would that not be "too much" for some enemies that are purposely designed to be extrahard to take down?

The whole Felling quality just makes me laugh, to be honest. It's such a blatant in-game correction to a poorly thought out piece of a system. It reminds me of two little kids fighting.

Kid 1: Well... my monster is so tough, that it's twice as tough!

Kid 2: Nuh uh! My weapon makes things that are twice as tough be normally tough!

Unnatural Toughness, in particular, suffers from the whole "geometric scaling always breaks systems" thing, because TB almost always applies to damage reduction. You get a Toughness up in the 60's or 70's, and all of a sudden you're more resilient than a suit of Power Armor. Especially since, after a certain point, virtually all weapons have some Pen value.

But now that it's in the system, the best they can do is dance around the problems it causes. People expect SM's to have it, so they give it to them... then create a whole new class of weaponry that obviates it. Whatever works, I guess.

My thoughts exactly - flat multipliers have never been a good idea for any system, anywhere, ever. Some people on this forum already had a few great ideas for how Unnatural traits could be "transformed" into something that makes more sense.

Your comparison to the fighting kids made me grin, though.

At Last Forgot said:

Yes, this is one of many problems I have with the system. Peackeeper_B's concept of making it primative is very good and I will adjust to that myself. Yet again, this is a house rule to fix a fix for a poor system. I have really unhappy with them coming out with yet another game(Black Crusade), when they really have not revised what they have already.

Give us a 40k core book, sure charge 60 bucks for that one, but then give us exspansions where I do not have to fork over cash for a reprint of the same 30 talents and skills(which will probably be so full of mistakes I will need to refer to previous versions).

Nimon said:

Maybe this is something for when (if ever) the RPG goes into 2nd edition. A chance not only to correct previous mistakes but also release one core rulebook and then many add-ons depending on the direction the individual groups want to go to. Similar to how the TT handles things.

Lynata said:

Bolt weapons are too good in DW. Let's ignore the many stories you hear on the DW forums of Rank 1 Marines one-shotting a Daemon Prince or Hive Tyrant with a HB. Let's have a look at this.

Astartes Predator: Structure 45, Rear AP: 20, Size: Enormous
Astartes Heavy Bolter: 2d10+10, Pen 6, ROF 10.

Yes in 40K you can hurt a Predator from the rear too but you do the math here for yourself if that isn't overpowered. And we haven't used any ability or gear that boosts damage, pen or ROF, mind you.

Astartes Heavy Bolter: 2d10+12, Pen 8, ROF 10. (Kraken rounds and Mighty Shot; still not fully optimized, btw, can add Bolter Mastery, Bolter Drill and master-crafted HB.) ...if 2 or 3 bolts hit here (very easy task), the Predator is gone.

The problem is that the high ROF acts as damage multiplier. The good news is that for every point of damage you decrease the average total decreases by 5 to 8 points.

Alex

Alex, what have you done! I come wandering into the DH forums looking for some ideas, maybe a couple of subterfuge concepts I can steal and convert into DW, and I find you in the midsts of yet another DW Bolter argument! Noooooooooo!

I guess I can admit it appears to have started out pretty good, but you had to know it would come back to this, didn't you?

Charmander said:

No, I was surprised that this still was going on and had grown by a few pages. And had been of course thoroughly derailed. It's interesting though because I have grown convinced that an integration of DH and DW is possible this way.

Someone else had suggested Bolter values of 1d10+8 or sth like that. Now this is roughly equivalent to 2d10+2, so they had been on the same track. And iirc Mortal Heavy Bolters (from DH) had trouble hurting even light armour in Deathwatch, so giving the Bolters from/in DH an additional damage point or two might not be totally off. Perhaps military grade (=Guard, non-Astartes) bolter ammunition?

Anyway I believe the integration of DH and DW isn't all that far off.

Alex

PS Why is the Astartes MM worse than the Mortal one? Or should that be 4d10+16 in DW?

Why downgrade the bolter? There is a 2d10 bolter in DH core book.