No, the S&W origin path system doesn't have to be balanced with itself. And balance main issue is combat, nobody cares if your explorator has a unfair advantage in tech use or your senechal knows all forbidden lores.

Balance is needed to give fairness to all players in a game. The S&W origin path affects all players equally as they are part of the same crew on the same ship (unless you have several groups interacting with each other in the same campaign). Thus balance is not required.

If you feel that your players are screwed because they have 30 SP instead of 40, it is your perception and has nothing to do with balance. As a GM, you have to adjust the opposition accordingly.

Your expectations toward FFG and this system are conceptually irrealistic.

If you dislike this system so much, my suggestion would be to use it for fluff only (ignore the mechanics) and use the rulebook version to determine profit and ship points. Or you can create a point based system and give a value in SP to archeo and xeno components.

renoh said:

Your understanding of balance is so simplistic and weak, I don't really think there is much we can discuss.

Balance is about giving PCs equal chance to shine and feel like contributing to the groups' goals and actions, without being dependand on the players' abilities to achieve that. Combat is one small part of that. Not insignificant, but also not more than one part.

In the case of the Warrant path, balance is about making all the choices equal in the benefit they provide a group with, so that mechanics do not influence a groups ability to chose a path to any degree, however small that degree may be.

renoh said:

What, to think FFG can try to make their rules as balanced as realisticly possible for the means at their disposale is irrealistic?

What world do you live in, the problems with the Warrant path are not rooted in some complicated and arcane matters of complex interactions between different parts of the system. Making the table balanced isn't hard! Just look at how many good ideas for changing the table there are in this thread alone. Even you have given one.

Gokerz said:

You seem to be looking for video game balance where it is bad from to give the player a lesser option. RPG's and 40K especially have extremes of all sorts. If you find fault in a chart that not every choice is equal, then that is a personal view point. Mine and many others viewpoint is that having the option of not being the biggest, best, richest, most powerful Rogue Trader in the expanse has as much validity and fun available to it as any other. Mechanical advantage should NOT be the driving factor of making choices with the S&W path.

Gokerz said:

I agree with your first paragraph, i disagree with your second. The Warrant path is balanced in the sense of your first paragraph. It allows all players to shine, and contribute to the groups' goals and actions just fine. It just depends on their choices in what way they shine. They can start as a group that's on top of the world, and shine by maintaining or expanding on that. Or they can start as a group that's down on it's luck and shine by overcoming adversity and rising to heights nobody could have possibly forseen who knew their humble beginnings. Either case: the career a player chose will not matter as all careers are equally important for the succes of a rogue trader crew (that's why the system is so cool, really).

Your second paragraph would imply that choosing to have your background be that you got a warrant to get rid of you only 10 years ago, with the condition of accepting a suicide mission but needing to use your own resources to pull it of; should have no ingame effect when compared to choosing a background that means you got your warrant handed down from your father, who was only the second to last in a very long and proud line of rogue traders to hold that warrant throughout the millenia since the Emperor slew Horus and who've made their fortune and then some ever since. It makes no sense whatsoever to take that position.

Next you state "so that mechanics do not influence a groups ability to choose a path to any degree". How does the warrant influence their choice? It is entirely up to them to choose whether they want to go for a destitute dynasty or one already fat on power and on the ascendant. They can choose the options they want. But every option has it's consequences. There is no mechanic in the warrant origin path that says you cannot choose to maximise your ship points and profit throughout the path. Nor is there one saying that you as a GM cannot rule that they have "free choices" on the path or that you cannot award them more SP's or PF or archeotech or whatnot. The path gives an option to those of us who lack imagination, are short on time, feel like having each member of the group decide one aspect of the background, ... . That's it's function. It does not differ at all from the consequence of choosing a seneschal over an arch-militant. Or being an explorator rather then an astropath. Each choice means you give up a number of options that the other choice does allow. Want to have mechandendrites? Fine, but no cool "i can kill you with my brain" powers. Want to be able to shoot the hairs of someone's arm without hitting anything else? Fine, but good luck at navigating the ship through the warp. A choice has consequences. You're essentially saying that a choice should not have consequences, which is ludicrous.

Well as you said you got an official response that it's not meant to be balanced in the way you intend, but you're the GM you can change it in any way you like if you feel that will make it more balanced. From their response it doesn't sound like they'll be errataing it any time soon. As going by peoples responses here a lot of people have no issue with it but you do. You could always just use the Warrant paths for flavour and to help your players get inspiration as to how they came into service with the dynasty, just give them the 90(?) profit factor that was the default before into the storm and let them bite into that for their ship points. It worked well for a long time so perhaps it might work for you and your group? Not a radical solution I know but I'm trying to atleast make some suggestion that isn't too complex that might work for you.

I've found the into the storm warrant path great in the two campaigns I've run it in letting players take turns picking. One group ended up being a bunch of infamous privateers who were given a warrant in the hopes they would run off and die... which they did not much to their enemies dismay. The players built on this and took pride in being the first of the Dynasty even if it was one of ill repute (the master gunner's player chose that they should be pirates which the Rogue Trader player was a bit annoyed at but tried to move the dynasties holdings away from). The rogue trader got working on an heir as soon as he could. He married the princess of a feudal worlds largest Empire as part of an alliance and their first child is on the way!

The other party came from an ancient martial line that almost went under only a few centuries ago but has been ascending until their fathers vessel was destroyed by chaos pirates! They've gone the privateer route and have their eyes set on rebuilding their dynasty's fortunes upon the corpses of pirates with strength of arms and cunning.

I give these as examples as I'd believe the primary goal of the ship and warrant path is to help the players and GM firmly establish a background that they can draw upon and build upon. If you think that certain paths are better than others you can rebalance it yourself in some form but it's a useful aid to adding flesh to the bones of the dynasty.

I just had another idea, the warrant path is hard to balance because it has only has PF, SP and archeotech/xenotech components as mechanical bonuses. You could always add in other bonuses in other parts of the path to help give more variance that are not dealt with in simple PF/SP as most of them are. Perhaps Sanction:Angevin Crusade could get a bonus to interactions with devout worshipers of St. Drusus? This is just an example and I am sure people can come up with others. I imagine however that it would take a while for you to balance it to a degree you are happy with. PF/SP are easy to quantify but if one path give extra bonuses to dealing with religious folk then parties could use that to their advantage if they are planning on setting up religious colonies or getting backing and political clout by endearing themselves to Ecclesiarchy types.

You are getting aggressive and deriding some of the others on the thread, perhaps it would be more productive for you if instead of argueing with others that the system is unbalanced and try to ask for other peoples input into balancing it mechanically as this seems to be what you want to do.

Is the path mechanically balanced perfectly? No

Is the path imbalanced taking into account non mechanical factors? Argueable, I have no issue with it but you do so I've tried to come up with alternatives for you.

Gaius said:

No, that's explicidly not what I want. Otherwise I would have posted in the House Rules forum.

I posted to ask if I missed any balancing element, because if not then I'd houserule it. I was told I didn't, so I decided to houserule it.

The discussion goes on because of some peoples' inability to read and because they somehow got miffed that I identified a rules imbalance, insignificant as it may be.

It's not even that anyone doubts the rules' imabalance, it's that they try to tell me that badly made rules don't matter, try to blame my players or do other citings of the unbelievable crap that is the Rule 0 Fallacy. I can't help it, if someone tries to pull that fallacy on me I just want to throw up, especially if doesn't belong into the thread at all, like this one.

How does one even get from reading a thread that asks about a perceived rules imbalance to vehemently telling the asker that imbalanced rules don't matter in the Rules Questions Forum ? The pure insanity and idiocy of it baffles me.

I mentioned the House Rules I'd be using in the 10th post in this thread. Did you read that far before you decided to answer?

Badlapje said:

(I'll just quote this, but it goes for the rest of the post too).

My god, didn't you read this thread?

What you are talking about is the price of rice in china, the age of the warrant and the points that provides has, taken by itself, nothing to do with the problems with the warrant path .

Why is everyone doing that? Can't you even take the time to look at the problem as presented in this thread?

Hell, can't you at least look at the Warrant Path to understand that what you atlk about isn't problem?

What's so hard about reading these days?

Sorry, but you are at the very least the third person to have made this mistake, and I just can't react normally to this kind of lazy reading anymore.

The table as is penalizes player choice, because the way it is structured it inflicts lower or higher starting values on groups without any connection or basis in fluff whatsoever. Players don't start with less point because they have a younger warrant, the table doesn't work that way . Thus a group can't use fluff to account for any differences in starting PF and SP that different choices might lead to.

Gokerz said:

I did read the entire thread, i replied in it before. I just don't agree with your logic. You see lower PF or SP as a penalty. I see it as a differing starting point which you can choose depending on what kind of story one wants to star in.

The above simple statement is what you don't get. On top of which you provide a faulty example just now. Players do start with less poins because they have a younger warrant. You can't get an older warrant then the "Age of Rebirth" one, and it has the most SP and the most PF. Most of the choices and the consequences they hold seem entirely logical to me. The only problem i have with the warrant path (as i stated earlier), is that it doesn't allow for free choices on each line. I have the same problem with the career path, and it's one that is easily houseruled either by giving a number of free choices or letting them all be free.

Basically, the entire concept of the warrant path seems to be so far out of your munchkin worldview that you simply cannot wrap your head around it. So i do hope that you houseruled it to your heart's content and it won't impede your fun anymore.

Badlapje said:

*sigh*

I think I give up.

What is so hard to understand about the Warrant Path?

Can't you look at is for the 5 seconds that are required to notice that you can make a warrant that starts at Age of Redemption and ends up with a higher total PF+SP than one that starts Age of Rebirth? Age of the Warrant doesn't matter for the final PF+SP total.

I don't know what's more embarassing, your inability to understand the thread, your inability to understand how the Warrant and Origin Path is structured or that you already stooped down to personal attacks by calling me a munchkin.

@Gokerz:

If the question is "Is there something missing from this path", then the answer is (according to.. Sam?), that nothing's missing.

If the question is "the SP+PF+bonus is unbalanced, right?", I'd sey "yes, you are right" since my group able to sort out SP+PF above 100 (compared to the usual 'mundane rolls of 90 totals, or some other path that only give 86 total). At least it is very unbalanced in the terms of SP+PF (and bonuses such as archeotech or xenotech).

However, just to put more emphasize, most of the people here (including myself) simply considers (under our own opinions) that SP PF and bonuses (mechanical benefits) are not the only way to balance out things. Fluffs and stories, to most people here at least in this thread (at least from my point of view), are another balancing factors as well (especially in a pen and paper RPG where we play with friends, having fun together).

Right now I do not think I'd like to share more opinions here in this thread, since apparently people who stated their opinion (opinions) got bashed. But maybe those are just my perception and opinion, who are prone to mistakes (just like my english).

Gokerz said:

Actually, you seem to be the one misunderstanding. You have presented you argument clearly and concisely and gotten a response of 'So what?'

What you are misunderstanding is that starting with 50 PF and 70 SP is not better than starting out with 45 PF and 65 SP. So, one path having a lesser set of totals is not worse than going down an adjacent path with better total. All it means is your ship has another bell, and you can afford another whistle.

Starting SP and starting PF are free parameters in starting a Rogue Trader game. If the GM wanted, and the players agree, they could start out with 20PF and 20 SP. They could start at 60 PF and 70 SP. They could start at eleventy billion PF and 0 SP. The fact that some paths on an optional chart are not all equally good is a tiny tiny problem.

You are also missing that part of the path is the path itself, and its use in defining backstory. Guess what? Some backstories arent as useful as others for getting PF and SP. It may be a bitchin story tho. So again, a couple less PF and SP are not a problem.

Most of us arent worried about maximizing SP and PF. As a result, we dont consider your problem to be a problem.

Gokerz said:

What amazes me is that i and many others continue to post here to answer your question, in what now must be dozens of different ways to explain the same simple reality, and your answer is every single time the same. Summarised your answer is:

"yousa dumb, mesa smart, warranth path isa unbalanced".

Given that i am appearently so far beneath your intellectual level, i'll gracefully leave you to figure out the meaning of life and the warrant path. I bid you adieu, kind sir.

Gaius said:

This would have been ideal. Simplifying the table to just PF and SP with a token archeotech/xenotech result missed some excellent opportunities.

For the record, I agree with pretty much everything Gokerz has said in this thread.

The Ship & Warrant Origin Path rules are not well designed.

What is there to "balance"? If the players pick an older warrant, you get tougher foes, hereditary grudges and hidden political enemies. If you pick a weaker one, go straight to high adventure. Balance is for player to player comparisons. You can't balance against the GM. The GM will throw whatever he deems a sufficient challenge against you. The better your ship is, the better your foes become.

I do agree that the warrant chargen could be more interesting with stuff like:

*Authority to commandeer Imperial forces

*Ecclesiarchical authority

*Grant of xx World

*Duty to supply forces

*Charged to cleanse xx world within xx centuries

*Charged to maintain xx warp route

*Relic: signed by the Emperor/Primarch/Sebastian Thor himself

*Bad Relic: signed by Horus himself

Telosse said:

See, that is completely okay. I do not argue that the the difference has to matter to any specific group,that any group is somehow deficient in any way if it doesn't affect them. I am arguing because a vocal minority of people seem to be of the opinion that it shouldn't matter to any group,that a group is somehow deficient if they have a problem with that imbalance (see the munckin comment above). The difficutly is that a number of people with a much more balanced opinion like yours seem to have misinterpreted my arguing against the vocal minority as me arguing against them as well.

There are also other points to consider:

- The fact that there might be a percantage of groups that have no problem with an imbalanced rule doesn't mean the rule isn't a problem and doesn't need to be fixed.

- While the Power difference that results from is a problem, I consider any componentupgrade you can cram into your ship to increase its value to a group even if removed from notions of power. Assuming equal quality of fluff a group thinks up for their ship more SP invested into the Ship at the start means a more individualized ship, with more unique character, more chances to be able to do interesting an cool stuff, more things that might turn into plot hooks, more elements that might positively affect roleplaying opportunitieswhat you might call all around chances for increased awesome. That is a problem even if you completely remove any notions of pure increase in combat powerother other game mechanical gains that result from the lower points. Again, not by much , but it irks me. This is also why the "just pick harder foes" argument doesn't work for me.

- The Warrant Path should not be balanced purely for the 100% non-mechanical groups. Groups that have a more mechanical bent in their preferences but still want to be able to chose their Warrant Path without any considerations for any issues in effectiveness down the road are legtimite. They are not somehow less worth balancing for just because they care more for mechanics than other groups.In fact, it's the other way around as groups that have a low dependency on balanced rules are less affected if the rules were balanced for groups that have a higher dependency on well balanced rules.

korjik said:

I am eagerly awaiting your statistical breakdown to back up this notion. It has to be pretty good, you a are claiming to talk for an awful lot of people there.

Okay, that's a bit unfair of me.

Still, do you mean to imply that a group shouldn't have a problem with this rules imbalance? Is a group that is affected somehow playing wrong, maybe having Badwrongfun`?

Or do you mean that because your "most of us" isn't terribly affected, the rule shouldn't be fixed?

Or none of the two and you are just making a general observation?

What does it actually matter to the question I asked in the OP if "most of you" aren't worried?

Gokerz said:

From post 31 to post 42, 7 people posted an opinion. 2 thought it was a problem, 4 did not, 1 showed no opinion. I could go back further, but that isnt really going to change the breakdown much.

What you miss is that most of us are saying it isnt an imbalance. The only way it could be an imbalance is if each path competed against one another. You seem to miss where I said that having less PF/SP only means you have less PF/SP. The starting PF/SP can be set to any values the GM wants. Like I said, if the GM wants a 20PF 20SP start, that isnt a problem, even tho it isnt stated somewhere in the book that you can do that.

You are the one saying that the chart is a horrible design. The rest of us are saying 'not really' The fact that some of the 400so paths do not give as high a total isnt a problem.

Personally, when you are talking an optional rule designed to define backstory as much as give starting SP/PF, I really dont want one of the line producers to waste a daytwo compiling all the possible paths to make sure they all give exactly the same SP/PF total. I would much rather they spend those days making the next book.

If it were to come down to my players,them complaining that they had two less SPtwo less PF, I would still go 'so what?', either dont use that path,maybe you could play the game to get those PFSPs.

duplicate post
duplicate post
duplicate post
duplicate post

korjik said:

Except the ones that, you know, agree with mesee it as a problem too.

So, there are two kinds of people in this thread: some for which the imbalance is a problem,others for whom it isn't a problemthey assume that because it isn't problematic for them there obviouslyobjectively can't be a problem. You realize which of the two is commiting a logical fallacy?

Gokerz said:

Theres no imbalance because there is nothing to balance. Having a PF/SP of 20/20 or a PF/SP zillion/zillion on this chart is irrelevant. because on the whole those using it see that its not meant to be balanced. Perhaps the text is too nuanced but its stiil there:

As per the Using the path heading of p.33 it makes it clear that using the path is a choice that the GM and players make to help

"the players feel more involved in their groups campaign, having made the choices that affect the groups starting level of profitthe starship they use to explore the unknown"

Futher more

"Selections on the very edge of the row are considered the extreems of that rows theme"

In short the if there INBUILT in the warrant path table the ability to take a totally extreem positions (choices) on either endany variation that you may want. Its a tool for creating a more fun background as the expense of having as you put it balancepeople can make choices on the background have an inkling of how that background would affect the SPPF because they would rather have an interesting background in keeping with th Calyxsis sector that the introductory balance system in the core rulebook which is a simplified system for people who perhaps have no idea of the setting

Imbalance in the Warrant path?

There is no pretention that there was meant to be any from the start.

Captain Harlock said:

Yes, there is nothing to balance about the Warrant Path, except the Warrant Path. Which is unbalanced enough that several people have already shown up to say that it irks them,even more have given ideas on how to fix that imbalance. You cannot wish it away by saying it doesn't exist. It may not be big, many people may not even notice or be affected, but that is something completely different than it not existing.

Also, those quotes you bring up talk about something different, as taking the choices at the edges of the Path has no connection to the imbalance. Taking an "extreme" option is not what decides whether you have the optimala decreased amount of starting points.

Basically, right now the Warrant Path punishes you if you take a second row option that is to the right of your first row option, and gives you extra if you take a second row option that is to the left of your first row choice. Does your book talk about that imbalance between going left and going right anywhere? Note: the first row doesn't actually matter, it's your second choice that decides how optimal the amount of points you get is.

Gokerz said:

Yes, you are commiting a logical fallacy. Starting with a 38PF instead of a 40PF is not an imbalance. It cannot be an imbalance since there is nothing to balance it against.

You arent competing against other rogue traders who used the warrant path to get a higher PFSP. Having a 38PF/38SP does not put you at a disadvantage compared to 40PF/40SP. Why? Because you arent competing against the GM. All that the lower quantities mean is that you start out with one less bell on your ship,one less whistle in your pocket.

Guess what? If you play the game, you can get that bellwhistle!

What you dont seem to understand is that the only way that the lower PF/SP could be a real disadvantage is if you are in some group situation where several PC rogue traders are competing to get a real life prize. Like at a conventionsomething. Then taking the lower path is a disadvantage.

As a matter of fact, if you were to make your objective for the game to reach a specific PFhave a specific ship, then the lower values are actually better because you would have to play the game more to reach your goal . And isnt playing the game kinda the point?

I only read the first page... But my plan is to simply give out the same total of profit and ship points regardless.