DFK! said:

D&D might not be on its own when it comes to encounter difficulties, but it is certainly in the minority, by a fairly wide margin.

Indeed: the D&D 3e 'balance' system does not even work properly. Dozens of monsters are ill-CR'ed, and there is a massive difference between what an optimised and non-optimised party can do. I'd go as far as saying that the D&D CR system is actually a drawback, because it lulls GMs into a false sense of security. I can think of at least three times I've been in a TPKed party where we were massively and obviously outmatched, and the GM wailed 'but the CR said it would be fine'. No GM can and should ever trust or respect any balance system contained in a game, because they are not situational.

You cannot seriously point to the CR system and say 'Look, a system that balances encounters properly. Something like this SHOULD be in ever game!' because it's like standing next to a Chevrolet Corvair and saying 'This is a great car. All cars should be built this way!'

Disdainful? No: Resigned to reality. There's not much point complaining about what 'should' be in a book that isn't there, especially when that thing is something that needs to be in the GM's head, rather than set down in stone. You just have to muck in and get your hands dirty, and we've tried to offer advice with dealing with that.

As far as I'm concerned, and I don't feel like an isolated case, I wasn't angry at the question, I was angry at the tone.

And at the fact that when faced with calm explanations (be they good or not, such is not the question), the OP just yelled at the non-simplicity of the system.

As Siranui pointed out, I prefer a system that remains vague and lets you know that you will have to try and fail before mastering it.

You're talking about Shadowrun? One of the most optimizable RPGs in history, making it completely impossible to balance (not mentionning the fact that in Shadowrun, PCs, NPCs, and even neuro-zombies are highly likely to double-triple-quintuple-cross the others, making any threat assessment completely delusional, as the circumstances may completely take sides?)?

Not saying threat assessment mechanism don't exist, but we're not playing a wargame or a video game, we're playing a RPG, where PCs may invent things you are not prepared for, and therefore completely change the way a fight happens. There is no simple threat assessment mechanism that works in the RPGs because there's no one in real life either.

Well, we now have to consider the weapon overhauls in errata 1.1... It will change things a lot.

The Russian said:

Yep, they'll have quite a difference. I'm just curious if the new Xenos book was crafted with the original or the new weapon stats in mind. Some weapons improved, many stayed about the same, others were drastically chopped down. The one trend I did notice was the heavy weakening of the bolter weapons, mostly in loss of automatic fire capabilities and lowered PEN. The PEN isn't huge, but the loss of hits from little to no automatic fire could be a game-changer.

And on the subject of D&D, the only real thing CRs are good for is rough guidelines (they're like the Pirates' Code that way). At a glance, you know not to throw that Ancient Red Dragon at your party of 1st-level characters. Beyond that, it boils down to experience, common sense, and planning. And a little luck, of course.

DFK! said:

I'm not being disdainful of an honest question, and most of the people here have explained how they do balance the setting, but I'll be the first to admit that talking with Sign of the Serpent can be frustrating at times because he (she?), intentionally or not, appears to disregard a lot of what people say and if things don't fit exactly as he wants them to the person or game is illogical, irrational, silly, or something similar.

DFK! said:

And you've touched now on a central pillar to the arguments posted here.

Brand said:

Remember the weapons presented in the errata are optional and as described are there to speed things up and roll less dice. That combined with MotX being already en route to the trucks tells me more than likely it's geared towards the original weapon stat lines.

On average, the boltguns damage isn't seriously reduced as the average damage before was something like 16, and it's now been reduced to 14 or so. The reduction in RoF is minimal as well, reduced from 4 to 3 and a chance from full auto to semi auto so it will make the marines slightly less accurate.

The game changing impact I see is that little changes are scattered across the whole of the line that will add up. You've reduced the boltguns RoF from 4 to 3 and made it incapable of full auto (so no more +20 to hit), and you've reduced the max damage, and you've reduced it's RF chance slightly, then you've also tweaked the enemy weapons as well indifferent directions. At first glance I do like the new stats but if I start using these stats this weekend I'll likely need to do some rebalancing on the fly.

Charmander said:

What I see as the big reduction in bolter deadliness is what you've touched on above PLUS the fact that they now need 2 DoS for an extra hit instead of one. When you add that to the +10 instead of +20 bonus, that's where I see the real reduction in deadliness coming.

I've only glanced over the new enemy weapons, but from what little I've seen the boosted Tau weaponry makes me not want to go against them with anything less than a sniper with great senses. Within a few hundred meters, they're just deadly.

Brand said:

Ah, good point, I had forgotten about that little tidbit, meaning they double the DoS for the base boltguns, but I think this goes hand in hand with the reduction of the HB down to ROF 6, which means the HB (and now the AC is a better fit), which leaves HBs better at killing hordes than the base assault rifle. I don't disagree that the overall rework will make big changes, I just don't see it as that game changing, but IMHO it actually will make blancing easier though that waits to be seen.

Yeah, there was concern that the mighty and technologically advanced tau had weapons that weren't really all that advanced compared to the boltguns previously, I kind of like that it changes their base stats up to be what the fluff implies them to be (though I still buy the argument that a weapon that did as much as a boltgun but could be toted around by regular folk was more advanced). It will definitely change the tactics of my players.

Charmander said:

Yep. If anything, the HB is even better than it used to be when compared to the new bolter stats. It's when you jump up to the, Renown-requiring goodies that the reduced bolters lose some of that pretty shininess. I agree that balancing will be easier with the new stats; the complication comes with tweaking old stats rather than coming up with new ones. I'm still not sure what the perfect compromise would be between the CA and Final Sanction versions of the Genestealer.

And I'd say that my players' tactics would have to change but they haven't run into Tau yet. I've mostly started at the top with Tyranids and started working my way down, so they've only run across Tyranids and a few Chaos so far. They'll definitely get a nasty surprise when they run into the Tau.

Balancing is always a bit easier when the party firepower is lower, in my experience.

Stormast said:

ak-73 said:

I really don't understand the way FFG design these games at all. I also don't understand the attitude that takes umbrage at someone wanting to buy the game/books and then tell them to do it all yourself. If FFG responded to that attitude then there'd be no game in the first place. So surely the best way forward is to provide people with the tools and rules to do it yourself and support that. FFG, otoh, seem to want to do the opposite; each book has lots of cool ideas but dangles tidbits of useful stuff atrhoughout all the books and all the gamelines with no discernible logic. Now maybe there is reason in their madness, but I'm afraid it's lost on me. I looked at Edge of the Abyss, which has nothing to do with DW, and found it has an interesting section on Chaos with sorcery. Was this really the best way to present that information? It's probably got considerable value beyond RT (excluding the ship rules).

I get that lots of people want to help in their own way, and that's great and I appreciate it. However I think they are also wonderfully missing the point. That's not meant as an insult either, that's just how I see it. That Chaos info, for example, could have been presented in a Chaos Sourcebook - and you won'tconvince me a book like that wouldn't sell.

As for learning on the job, well that's all well and good, but again surely it is the author's job to give the prospective players/GM all the help and tools they can to make their game work, especially one as crunchy as this. Already the GM has to deal with an amount of errata (which wouldn't be so bad but it seems to include a complete rewrite of all the gear stats which is not terribly handy). So rifling through several different books to cross reference rules as well as learn the experience to judge balance.

Wouldn't you think that in a game based on systems of numbers that a balancing system would be very easy to achieve. If you can create a Space Marine using 12k XP, then you could surely say a Lictor costs 14k xp or whatever. He is after all built from the same stats and abilities (with a few exceptions that I'm sure could be costed).

And yes Mark of the Xenos might have all sorts of good stuff - but it might not. It looks potentially very good, but it also looks like it has very specific antagonists, something FFG do a lot. If you again look at Edge of the Abyss it doesn't so much provide 'generic' eldar or orks or whatever, it gives stats for a specific eldar pirate guy haunting the Expanse (and his stats take up half a page!). Is that efficient? Is a stat block that large not unwieldy?

I really would love to hear from FFG why they take these decisions.

Siranui said:

This ^^

signoftheserpent said:

While I agree it would be nice to see some more depth on some of the adversaries, I'm not sure I see this as a huge problem. An example I'll use is World of Darkness, mainly because it has 3+ 'games' built around a core set of rules similar to 40k. If I have a monster in one book that I want to use in a different book, I still have to 'convert' the thing to make sure it fits the flavor and power level of the other game. A rating of 3 in a power in one game is not equal to a rating of 3 in another because each of the games was designed with itself in mind. Each of the games has a distinct flavor. That didn't make any of the games less fun to me.

In FFGs games, in order to port monsters from one 'game' into another, the GM has work ahead of him, or her, and will need to adjust the creature to fit the group that they're running. Or you can port it straight over and figure it'll be a low to moderate threat level to an 'average' DW Kill Team that has a devestator, a librarian, a tactical, and an assault marine. Then of course you have to figure in environment, how you play the enemy, what intel you give the group, etc.

Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't really bother me that as a GM I need to do a bit of extra leg work to create custom enemies for my games or that I have to do extra work to create additional adversaries. Though I suspect that this ties directly into your previous complaint that you didn't feel there were enough statted enemies in the core book, to which I also do not have a problem with.

signoftheserpent said:

Again, the relevance is to try and help us figure out where you're coming from. Comparing FFGs game to others also shows that they are or are not operating in a 'standard' fashion. Most of us, and it sounds like you're included, don't come from nowhere, we come from a background, we come from prior experiences, etc. Many of us here don't understand at all the perspective you're coming in with that this game needs to have every single loose end tied up before the players even sit down at the table. And it's not just this post, it's your prior posts about not enough adversaries and complaints about starship rules and the like. you have a perspective that is not common.

signoftheserpent said:

What you're asking for is essentially a core rule book and then 'splat' books for each of the lines- many people have suggested this, but the way that DH was first conceved kind of makes this difficult to achieve. I think it's also hard to get the balance you're looking for within the different flavors of each of the games with that system of core books and rules. Perhaps well see a change if they go to a new edition, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that edition to come out anytime soon.

signoftheserpent said:

I've seen several GMs start up a game, and they have the core book, an adventure book, and 20 supplement books. They get bogged down in trying to create this epic scope that includes all of the goodies from all of the additional material and the campaign falls apart because there was no focus and everyone is confused as hell because what power comes from what book becomes the focus rather than the players and their characters and the story.

PLAY with your group with the rules as they are. Learn the game, learn the group. Once you have that, tweaking it will become much easier. Sometimes your requests seem like you're trying to run before you can walk. Of COURSE it's going to get complicated when you start digging through a ton of splat books, stick with the core couple and get a feel for what things are and do.

As for the weapon changes, they're optional, but they're printed on the same format that the books are- I am actually pretty excited about that because I can print off 5 copies and hand them out to my players and stop having to share my core book with them!

signoftheserpent said:

Only on the surface . Take the Vindicare Assassin from Ascension. On paper, his stats are pretty close to a Space Marine (well, depending on level), but the outcome of a fight between the two will vary greatly based on who goes first, how the encounter is staged (does the assassin come from the darkness to get a surprise round? Does he shoot the character from a great distance? Does he engage in hand to hand? Does he use one of his special magic bullets), and what talents the PC has.

As for the costing of stats, for better or for worse, FFG has created a system where a skill or advance is not the same cost between classes. Unnatural characteristics for example cost different amounts for different classes. Fellowship Advances are harder for a Guardsman than they are for a Scum. Weapon Skill is cheaper for an Assault Marine than for a Devestator. They attempted to balance the PC classes with each other, but to balance them again with all of the various enemies (especially one off enemies and the like) is a herculean task that, I suspect, serves a very small portion of the market.

signoftheserpent said:

Is your OCD as bad as mine, because with all of this efficiency and math table stuff you speak it sure seems that way

Look, a lot of games I've played won't come up with a generic stat block for a class of enemy, they'll do a specific enemy to give you inspiration as a GM to go and create your own. "Oooh, the Eldar Pirate had UA and a cool phase ability, so when I build mine..." I suspect, though can't confirm as I'm not one of them, an authors intent here is to inspire you to create your own world rather than create a ton of generic, faceless, boring enemies that crash against the PCs.

signoftheserpent said:

There is a link at the bottom of the forums where you can send them an email; the chances of them responding directly to you in a forum are slim.

It was relevant because you kept talking about how it's so unreasonable that THIS game doesn't have a balance mechanic, and yet others do. Hence, you were bringing it into the conversation. We're demonstrating that there *is* no balance mechanic that works, and what you're asking for does not exist in a working format. We've asked you what direction you're coming from with those comments, but had nothing in reply.

It's not you wanting to buy books that's meeting with antagonism, but your insistence in making unreasonable demands, saying 'that's not relevant' half the time someone offers advice, and raising complaints about things that have already been printed and can't be changed. It feels like we're throwing advice into a black hole, as whenever is is put forward, it is met with negativity and complaints that it's not how it 'should' be, rather than any feedback.

Once again: You will not know how the game runs until you run it. Run the introductory adventure from the book, and get a feel for it.

Given that RoB was essentially a player's splatbook, there's always the chance that MoX might contain guidelines to combat balance, or -as you say- it might not. There is an outline of a balance system in the Troop/Elite/Master designation, but there's not much that can be done other than that. Saying that a Lictor can be built with XP and balanced in that manner is a bit naive because -as has been repeatedly stated- the challenge of a critter is situational.

All the tools you need to do the job... well... mostly that's down to experience. I mean, FFG could include in every game a 20 page guide to 'how to GM', but then they're wasting paper as far as everyone who buys the book to play rather than run is concerned, and as far as every experienced GM is concerned. I certainly view 'how to run/play an RPG' chapters as a massive waste of space and an irritant. And...the information is already out there, for free. Gnome Stew for example is a GREAT website, full of tons of articles about improving GMing skills. Give that a look.

The weapon stat changes are optional. Don't use them if they're a bother. Frankly, it's nice to have a company that actually bothers not only with errata, but also keeps tuning their game. As pointed out, it also saves players trashing the original by pawing over it.

FFG are a company that has financial concerns and that has to adapt to the market. I'm sure every company would love to say 'we're going to publish 4 related RPGs, so let's write them all now so they mesh, playtest them to perfection, and then release the first in two years, and the rest in the following three years when everything is ready', but that's not the way life and business works. GW no doubt wanted games out sooner rather than later and made demands, too. In a perfect world we would have four perfect products that sync'ed perfectly, but this is not a perfect world, and that kind of thing doesn't happen. RPG companies work hand-to-mouth and -in my experience- about a month away from being bankrupt. They have to think tactically rather than strategically, because games companies that spend too much time dreaming of future empires instead of desperately putting the next product on the shelves don't last too long. Every extra month spent in playtest or holding a product to see if it works alongside something someone else is working on in another project team is a month without income.

FFG takes these decisions so they remain viable as a company. They make the choices that cater to the largest chunk of audience, and are going to cater primarily to the people who buy the stuff most. They have a zillion deadlines, piles of work, print schedules a mile high, bills to pay, and kids to feed. But if you want to hear directly from FFG then these forums are the wrong medium, and you'd be better off simply emailing them.

Charmander said:

Of course, that's hardly an uncommon behavior around here.

Blood Pact said:

It's also unfair.

It's not really reasonable to criticise someone by assuming they aren't prepapred to whip up their own rules and stats for various things when they buy into a published game. While peopel are entirely free to do just that, the whole point of buying a published game is so you don't have to. That is after all what you are paying for. It's unfair to criticise someone on that basis or for wanting clarification on how things work. You would think that a game system would be perfectly able to classify monsters as everything adheres to a single rules system and uses numbers to rate and cost abilities and such.

signoftheserpent said:

SOTS, what everyone has been saying is that such a classification system doesn't work, even in games like D&D that try to use it. At best, all you can get is a general idea of how deadly a creature can be.

For example, look at the simple Genestealer. Say you've got a group of 3 Deathwatch Space Marines, all Devastators. If the fight takes place in an open field with little cover and 3 Genestealers charge the team from 200 meters away, you'll have a very short fight as the Devastators blast 'em to little pieces.

Now imagine the same fight taking place in a space hulk, with tight corridors, low lighting, and flickering glow lamps causing havok by producing moving shadows. The Genestealers drop out of vents or shadows and engage that same kill-team. In this case, you've likely got 3 dead Space Marines.

So are 3 Genestealers a match for 3 Space Marines? The answer is that they can be. But the situational factors - environment, what specialties make up the party, etc - play such a huge role that you can't make such general classifications. Change that second fight from 3 Devastators to 2 Assault Marines and a Librarian and you'll be looking at an entirely different outcome.

signoftheserpent said:

Classification offers false security. It's a GMs job to callibrate encounters to the kill-team. There is no way getting around it. And putting that work in will make you more familiar with the rules as a GM also.

I mean how hard is it really for you? A Nid warrior has 48 wounds. If you look at the stats, you'll see that he's more than a match for a Rank1 marine in melee. You'll also see that he sucks in ranged combat. (I am talking pre errata here.)

What more do you need to know?

Alex

ak-73 said:

How hard is it? I have no idea. That's the point. If I look at stats I have no immediate way of knowing, which you admit in your first sentence.

Brand said:

You are somewhat missing the point. I'm not arguing whether variables can or can't affect combat. It's pretty obvious that combat circumstances can alter the balance. But those are things I can judge for myself after I know how tough the opposition is on paper. If I know that 1 Lictor is as hard as 1 SM then I can put him in a situation that balances him against an entire kill-team, if i want, or not. I can make that decision properly because i have the information to do so. Anything else is just guesswork, and telling me that adversaries can be tougher or weaker depending on circumstances beyond their stats is really a way of evading the question.

signoftheserpent said:

It wasn't intended as such, sorry if that's how it came across.

signoftheserpent said:

You'll have to face the thought that exploring this is part of the fun for many gamers though. We do these fights partially to find out whether a Marine really is more than a match for a Nid Warrior and under which circumstances. From uncertainty there comes suspense...

So what I conclude from that is that the GM must be able to roughly estimate relative strength. He should be able to see that normally a Hive Tyrant will be too much for a single marine.

I am saying this: in preparation for an encounter, it's your job as a GM to look over the talents and traits and stats of a xeno. You need to know what these abilities roughly do. Then you calculate in your head a rough estimation.

For example, it's not hard to see that once a HT or Daemon Prince gets into close combat with a marine, fate points will be burnt. They have so many attacks, such a high WS, they'll pose a major threat to a kill-team in CC. So from that follows that the kil-teams job is to eliminate the HT/DP as quickly as possible - before it can make it to melee range. That analysis needs to shape your set-up of an encounter.

If you wanna kill PCs, let such an enemy pop out of nowhere right next to them. If you want the players to kill a master-tier enemy and joke about it, let the HT appear 500m away on plain level ground without cover and on its own. Those are the extremes.

Your job as a GM is it to understand the strengths of your KT, including current weapon set-up, the strength of the xeno and determine an encounter set-up between the outlined extremes. If you think your kill-team packs a lot of firepower, drop him close-by. If you think your PCs are relatively inexperienced or not well-equipped, drop him by further away.

signoftheserpent said:

Let me just state this: Deathwatch is no beginner's game. Not saying that you are, btw. It's the most complicated of those published so far. The players have a seemingly endless bag of tricks which is part of the fun of the game. Some of the enemies also have a fairly sophisticated profile (some a bit too much if you ask me).

You want a classification profile a la D&D? You'll have to wait for FFG to deliver or roll your own. I haven't noticed a high demand for that in the forum so far though. Everyone else does as I outlined here: they callibrate by hand.

As a GM should so, I say.

Alex

signoftheserpent said:

So how difficult is it for you to determine the challenge rating of a Tau Crisis Suit for example. How long does it take you to assess it on your own, assuming you have glanced over all the stats at once? Because you can't pop master or elite tier enemies into a game without reading over them at least once. Unless you and your friends are only fooling around, which is okay too.

You need to closely glance over it prior to the fact. No way of getting around that, challenge rating or not. And you need to learn all the most important talents and traits before-hand. If that's too much work, the game is either too complex for your taste or you need to resort to a more fooling around play-style.

Alex

ak-73 said:

signoftheserpent said:

Okay, at this point I have to say: that is your problem, don't bother me with your feelings please. I apologized the first around, there won't be second time. The above is my view. Live with it.

signoftheserpent said:

I have taken duly note of your opinion on that matter. Move along.

signoftheserpent said:

You are free to use the report button. Other than that you will have to live with me expressing my view of the subject. I don't withdraw a single letter of what I have said.

Alex

ak-73 said:

How difficult would it be to list how much XP it cost to build the Crisis Suit? How difficult is it to cost out the unique talents/traits/rules that many adversaries come with? Could they not have been included in the talents list rather than solely for that monster? That way the GM has extra tools, properly costed, to build new monsters? That idea isn't without precedent as the talents list already includes many that are used only for adversaries as it is.

Surely the best way is to guage the XP cost of the kill team and use that to either build new monsters/xenos or build your own version of stuf like tyranids/tau, or to 'pay' for stuff in the book already. I don't understand why that's not possible; these adversaries use the same talents and stats as marines so therefore they must fall on the same xp costs, even regardless how may stats/talents/traits they have. As I said, unique talents could have been costed to factor in. Weapons too, if necessary.

That's how other games do it. If i play Mutants and Masterminds, i build villains using the same points as the players, or less if they are to be weaker henchmen types (and many games have their own henchmen rules, or horde rules anyway). Why not here? What makes 40k different in that regard. The GM can then choose if he wants to use a monster with higher stats and can write the adventure accordingly - he at least has the info to make that decision.

Now it might be possible for me to go through the stats of each monster and retrofit an XP cost, as someone is bound to suggest. But that's extra work that really I shouldn't have to do. Why? Because that's why we pay for rulebooks. DIY is entirely fine, if that's your thing (and with an xp system, as i said, you still can), but it should only be an option, not the default.