I wasn't very impressed with RT, which I subsequently sold because I thought the corebook was exceptionally lacking in terms of critical information. I am however thinking of getting Deathwatch, however I have some concerns. There are some that feel the rules are not balanced, I have heard that the characters are just very overpowered (in a game breaking sense) and that the game is unbalanced. I'm also concerned as to what the rulebook contains, as with RT. I have no problem with supplements, but books aren't cheap and there is, IMO, a fundamental level of information, in any game, that a core rulebook must provide. How does DW measure up?

Umm ... you might need to be a bit more specific.

The Marines in the game are very much fluff marines not Tabletop marines, which makes them very, very powerful relative to most enemies.

Bolters are very, very good, to the extent that some houserule them to do less damage (but a lot of this comes from personal preferences, a lot of people seem to think that plasma and melta weapons should be flat out better than bolters in every way and are upset that they aren't).

The rules are a bit sparse on iconic Xenos species (no Orks and Eldar for example) but there's some good houserules available on this board.

But I don't really know what you'd consider "broken" so I can't really comment on that.

I have read complaints that the Marines are just unstoppable relative to their enemies in the way the rules work.

Unbalanced wepaons isn't terribly inspiring in a game about space marines either!

I also hear there's a lot of errata/mistakes in the corebook (has there been a second printing?)

And no Orks? Why Tau above Orks? I don't understand that at all, surely Orks are just iconic; i'm not a fan of them but they make more sense than Tau. And again no Necrons I guess.

To be clear, DW is an 'advanced' game, meaning that if you're not familiar with running 'high level' games it may prove a bit of a challenge. In D&D terms it's probably 15-30th level, in WoD terms it's level 5+ powers. There are a couple of combos you can do to make it really fell like you're out of control as a GM, but those aren't truly hard to houserule, especially if you have a cooperative group.

The toughest part I've had so far is getting the players to create dynamic Marines, as there is a pull to make them more static characters.

There are mistakes/typos in the core book, and if you can't live with that then pass on the book- IMHO it doesn't make the game any less enjoyable. People tend to toss around phrases like 'deeply concerning' and the like, but if you ask me it's a bit of an overreaction. That said, the quality could be, and should be, higher.

As for errata, check the support page, that's all the errata they've printed.

Tau were probably picked because there was nothing on them already printed, whereas orcs already have some rules printed, and they had to fit it all in the core book, but that's conjecture. If you want to know more about the background of the Reach and the enemies within it I suggest prowling the GM boards and looking for spoiler tags.

I don't think Tau are a good choice of enemy as they aren't inherently 'bad' (or rather, everyone's bad in the 40k universe, really - there are no good guys frm an objective point of view). Necrons would have been better, even an ork waagh.

I disagree that the Tau would be a bad enemy. They function well as a technically advanced alien and can act with both suppliety and play the role of temporary allies in a way that most other races, including the Necrons can't. In fact I find the Tau can offer an enemy that is pretty unique with only the Eldar have the ability to come into the same territory. Also all enemies don't need to be raving monsters, while those can be great - some shades of grey can often add alot to a game and setting. But then again I consider the Tau to be the Imperium's morale equal so it isn't really that much of a problem, and I don't mind to emphatize that the Imperium really is an oppressive and xenophobic regime, not knights in shinning armour.

Also I find the Tyranids and the Necrons pretty similar - both of them alien abominations that wants to destroy all life in the galaxy.

signoftheserpent said:

Well, we're all entitled to our own opinion of what the best bad guys are, but I think you're (and I did the same in the past) selling the Tau short. There is another thread on the GM forum about 'commie blue bastards' or something similar that goes into the good and bad of the Tau. The 'truth' is, as always, cloudy, but the Tau are pretty effed.

But to Gurkhal's point, the Tau fit an entry into the enemy list that's kind of unique, and Eldar and Orks are documented in other books already. And of course, if you don't want to fight Tau, don't, use the other salients. Again, supplents are inbound for the game, and much of your favorite enemies will likely end up making an appearance.

As for Necrons (undead in space) take a look at the timeline- they don't show up in Imperial records until 897, which is before the current date in DW of 817.

I might as well do the job of pointing out that just because that's the date of the first official contact between the Imperium and the Necrons, it doesn't mean it's the first actual time they encountered each other.

Especially when you factor in the extremely secretive organizations, like the Deathwatch (hell, Space Marines in general) and Inquisition.

And the game designers have been dropping enough hints that I think we can expect to see them show up in Deathwatch eventually. But while it's not a conventional storytelling medium, you don't build up a whole lot of suspence by talking about dark omens and mysterious threats, and then unveil that it's all just the Necrons when you flip to the last couple chapters of the book.

Personally I like the idea of using the Tau as a better moral standard than the Imperium. In my game the Tau are used to demonstrate how oppressive and backwards human civilisation is. Sure the Eldar can fulfill a similar role but they are an old race and the Tau are filled with the optimism of youth and plans of spreading the good word.

I am aware that by the fluff they are as bad as everyone else, I just enjoy giving my players moral dilemmas and exposing the negative aspects of the system they champion!

signoftheserpent said:

Hohoho. I wish. Marines are superbly good at killing 'normal' stuff. 100 Imperial Guard? No problem. But that's just the filler. The serious threats that parties of PCs face in the game are very dangerous indeed. If the party are having too easier a time of it, then it's not FFG's problem and mistake in writing the game, it's the GM's in not including serious threats.

There is already plenty on Orks in other sourcebooks, so adding Tau actually added something to all of the 40k RPGs. That said, it's not like Orks are in any way excluded from the game simply by their exclusion from the rulebook. There are stats for them in RT and DW, and any GM worth their salt can just make something up... or just use the frankly excellent ork stats recently published on the forum.

Siranui said:

signoftheserpent said:

... that FFG wants you to spend on their products. That's why they produce them

No, seriously, I totally get your point, but we should perhaps wait until Mark of the Xenos is published until we complain about missing enemy stats.

signoftheserpent said:

Nobs can work as individuals but would seem to be on the low scale of elites. Equipped with Mega Armour they are a bit more of a threat (but very vulnerable to things like Librarians doing their "I hit you with a sword, you die" thing.

The GM made a Master level character using previous ork information and other Master level enemies as guidance and he worked well (again he was less if a threat than he might have been due to the Librarian doing over 40 points of damage in one turn... but then that is what he built around doing, and even then he critted two, maybe 3, characters, forcing one to burn a fate point).

Basically with a little work they work fine.

But again that's material from a different game, requiring the inefficient purchase of books just for a couple of pages of data.

signoftheserpent said:

One could argue that they're doing a very good job of it... from their perspective. And as a buyer of multiple systems, I do feel very pleased that they have catered for me in NOT replicating too much in the way of setting information. I certainly won't condemn them for considering their regular customers more than those who only buy one book.

Again: You could always spend some time downloading the stats that have been crafted and publicly published. They are no less valid for being free. And if such work is somehow 'limited', then I'm not sure what you expect of similar quality work in a chargable hard-copy format? I certainly think that you should at least look at them prior to judgement.

You're being so negative about every solution that it's hard to give a suggestion that will satisfy you. After all: You don't want to buy more than one book for the system (excluding the solution of either buying DH/RT books for use with DW or indeed buying the Mark of the Xenos book that's intended to be the 'monster manual' for the system and precisely the information that you want!), you don't want to put additional work into writing things for the game, and you find published stats limited. I'm a little lost for suggestions short of asking one of the writing team to pen and publish for free a bunch of stats on orks*, and more than slightly confused as to what adventures you'll be running for the game.

It's the way of all RPG systems that the customer either ponies up for supplements or gets the pen and paper out and writes their own additional stats, adventures and fluff.

*Which is - bar being in an actual free hardcopy - pretty much what the community has already been given. And for Eldar, too.

Now you aer putting words in my mouth. I didn't say I don't want to buy extra books, but that that should be my choice. I shouldn't be compelled to do so because the official material lacks content. It isn't an answer to say use other people's created material: why does a game about Space Marines feature so anaemic a chapter on adversaries for example? How much does it cover regarding the forces of chaos - marines, sorcerers, mutated tanks, daemons, warp creatures, heretics? I don't understand why a game developer would stint on such material when it's guaratneed to sell games. In lieu o fthat a recommendation to buy RT (again) for the page it has covering Kroot mercs seems unreasonable.

It IS your decision to buy additional books. You can play the game just fine using only the core rulebook. You're just a little limited on your choice of foes (if you don't want to develop your own).

Do you really expect the developers to include EVERYTHING in one single book? In my opinion, that's a little much to ask. It is absolutely common to publish a creatures/adversaries/monsters book seperately from the core rules, that's not something FFG invented.

Basically your options have now been named several times. You want more enemies? You have two options:

1. Wait for Mark of the Xenos and then buy it, it features exactly what you are looking for (hopefully)

2. Use the already published material to make your own foes or use the stats provided in this here forum.

Well I kind of agree with the Serpent (I hope that you won't mind that nickname, signoftheserpent ) in that it is a bit bad for us customers that FFG has spread out the information the way they have. I for one would think that it could be cool with some cross-series books regarding certain xenos races such as Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, Tau etc. where it contains info and stats that can be used for any of the game lines, and perhaps also some simplistic system for playing aliens.

I'm sure that it has already been discussed but I thought that I would mention it anyway.

Arkhan said:

I don't expect them to include everytyhing; I expect them to take a reasonable approach to the setting and give me the tools to do the rest. But the book doesn't even seem to provide Chaos powers beyond those listed for the Daemon prince. So while Chaos alone would be enough to contend with even that gets short shrift; no chaos sorcery, psykers, or equipment! It seems very strange for a game that's so detailed to skimp on the one thing that really you would want the most info for - foes!

Couldn't Rites of Battle have included some of this sort of stuff as an all round game companion book? I have no idea what's in Mark of the Xenos, but i'm guessing less a focus on Chaos and more on aliens. Even then it will likely be very specific stuff when what seems needed is a toolkit to let players create their own stuff since what plauyers have created is inevitably going to be founded purely on guesswork.

telagos said:

Unfortunately, when you decide to go and do something like make the Tau the good guys (especially when there's material refuting that idea entirely), then you've pretty much just turned your player characters in to the bad guys.

This does not typically make for a very fun game. Assuming your group is a bunch of 40K nuts, it shouldn't be too much problem, but if there are some more traditional roleplayers amongst them then they may be dissatisfied. Though I wouldn't see them taking the logical route, of defecting to the Greater Good.

signoftheserpent said:

It really *is* your choice to buy extra books - nobody is forcing your hand- but the alternative is to make stuff up or find it on the net. I'm personally grateful of the addition of the last option in recent years. Even if net-stuff is often flawed, sometimes it isn't, and sometimes it's great inspiration.

Considering the enormous size of the DW core book and the massive crunch to chaff ratio, I'm not sure that there is room for anything else in there, and it's massively unfair to accuse the DW book to be lacking in content. Indeed: I believe that material was cut for space reasons as-is. Personally, I'd prefer things to be cut from the rules that can easily be made up by GMs, rather than the rules themselves. Two pages on 'how to build a demon' would be a complete waste to my mind (as well as a replication of prior works). Why would I want Chaos equipment when my guys are Deathwatch and anything Chaos-spawned would never be used by them, except as a McGuffin? What use are chaos vehicle statistics without vehicle rules (both of which are in RoB, btw)?

What would you rather see cut instead? After all; Chapters get only a page of blurb each. Cutting the (all new) Tau stuff to make way for a reprint of Orks would ensure that existing customers (the ones that are demonstrably happy to to keep throwing money FFG's way) would be unhappy, as well as all the casual customers like yourself who hold the polar opinion to you: That Orks are less cooler antagonists than Tau or Chaos. Remember that opinion is just as valid as yours. And what if they put both in? Then casual buyers would object to the lack of Eldar...

The concept of having another book for monsters and NPCs is well-established in the RPG world. I'm struggling to think of many recent games where statistics for antagonists are given more than half-a-dozen pages of a core book. Certainly D&D and -as I recall- WoD give us the square root of naff-all in those departments. If you don't understand why they'd skimp on it as it's certain to sell games, then consider this: Publication of a monster manual is certain to sell fans two hard-back books, instead of the one. that's not a poor choice for a company to make at all. It would be a bit daft NOT to so, to my mind at least.

Rites of Battle follows the trend of RPG in releasing a 'player's book' of more crunch for players. Whereas only one person around the table needs the GM guide, a player guide has a much wider audience. I'm also not a fan of the printing of 'GM stuff' in player source books.

I don't think it's very fair to second-guess the contents of MoX prior to release. It might suck, or it might be great. I'll wait and see.

As to player-created material being guesswork... we have RT, DH, lots of fiction and a tabletop game to draw from, so there's not much guesswork involved and... well, the FFG team will essentially be doing that exact same guesswork themselves, as they're drawing from the same sources. They don't have a conversion guide. And again, I'd like to to at least take a look at the Eldar and Ork stuff that has been shared with us before being too critical of it, as it is publication-standard material.

Blood Pact:

I don't agree, but it depends on your players, I guess. Some like being heroes and good guys, and some groups love the opposite. Humanity in 40k is on humanity's side, and no matter how much of a fascist dictatorship it is, it's still a very identifiable and sympathetic cause to us all: If it came down to it, we'd all probably rather side with people who look like us than blue dudes with hooves. Additionally, I didn't need the Tau to juxtaposition the Imperium to show me just how downright horrible the Imperium is. They've always been unsavoury. To me the DH/DW line are very much 'Jackbooted Fascist Oppressors: The Roleplaying game!'.

I realise that other games do things their way, but that is not really relevant. We aren't talking about other games.

It's a big deal to me that the game is lacking in what would seem to be a core area. The arguyment that it's crunchy is not really a good one since there was no reason the game needed to be. It is what it is, but for me I have to decide if it's worth it. I don't even know what Mark of the Xenos contains (other than a big tyranid). So far FFG's approach hasn't made much sense to me. I don't want a specific monster, I want core rules for core monsters or at least a toolkit to do it myself, not be left guessing, or relying on books from other games I don't own either.

The point about Chaos vehicles was not so that the players could use them, but so that the GM has stuff to throw against them, trhe same with rules for chaos sorcerers, other monsters and such. CHaos is THE main antagonist for the space marines and they have so little in the core book. That doesn't really make much sense to me in what is a combat game. Are you going to give the players the Daemon prince to fight every game?

signoftheserpent said:

Not for Deathwatch Space Marines. They're Ordo Xenos and so fighting Aliens is what they are supposed to do most of the time.

Blood Pact said:

The Tau are there as a contrast to the Imperium. They are optimistic and, in comparison to the Imperium, "good". I actually don't like the attempt to "40k" them more recently, as I don't think they needed darkening up. Their purpose is to be the shining beacon of light (on a relative scale... on modern judgement they are violent imperialists) which consequently make the setting darker if anything else. "40king" them as the last codex did... well robs them of their distinctniveness, misses the point, and just makes the 40k universe less interesting

On the main topic: You can make your own enemies up. 40k rpg has stats which have a scale of roughly what they represent, which means that if you understand it isn't too hard to construct your own stats, especially with further help from the limited selection of enemies in the advesaries section (though that will not stop me from admitting it was a slighlty dissapointing section). 25-35 is normal human, 35-45 is above average human, 45-50 is exceptional and anything above 50 is basically inhumanly powerful (though some exceptional humans will have some stats in the 50+s, including high level PCs). Basically you don't need anything but the core rulebook to play (for any of the games). Yes, various books will give "official" stats, are useful in itself, and can give extra guidance to creating your own enemies, but none of them are necessary.

signoftheserpent said:

What do you mean by 'core rules for monsters'? Stat lines for every monster in the universe or stat lines for a handful of them that you can then modify to fit the antagonist of choice? I don't think I understand what you're asking for, and I'm not sure any other mainstream RPG offers what you're looking for, either.

As others have said, you get some good distinct stats in the core book, and you're going to have to do some reading to understand what they do. Once you have that, you'll be all set to build your own. As a GM, IMHO, you have to know all the rules and be able to build out characters from the samples provided. If reading the Demon Prince's stats is causing strain then use the exercise of understanding his stat block to help you learn the rules and build better bad guys. The stats you have already in the book ARE your toolkit, you can guess and tweak from the samples provided, but it's going to require you to read and experiment.

As I re-read these posts, it seems like you've already made up your mind as to what DW is and is not; if you're already this incensed about it then maybe DW isn't for you. I can tell you I find the enemies compelling, I don't have trouble creating my own adversares, and my group seems to enjoy our session.