AluminiumWolf said:

I have a space marine avatar and I don't mind them being nerfed

peterstepon said:

I'll keep my argument as on topic as possible, but I can't help but say to this particular point I don't completely agree with you

The relevant point, I think, here is that the US (and as others have brought up as well) don't want to level the whole area and kill everyone within an x mile radius. I guarantee you that if a country dropped a couple of nuclear devices on Kaddafi’s head it would end the regime. The problem is that you kill countless innocent lives, screw up countless more, and render the territory you’re pissing over useless for a considerable amount of time. For goodness sake the Empire has access to the Exterminatus, which kills EVERYTHING, yet they don't use it in all cases because it's not always meet the goals of the mission. That and 40k seems to have a lot of old fashioned war themes running through it, and you did't have orbital lasers in WWI or WWII.

@Adeptus-B: I am in 100% agreement with you sir, even if I didn't hate the orginal weapon stats with the same fervor you did, I'm liking the looks of these more because it still gives the players plenty of ass kicking, but not so much they win without trying/thinking.

Charmander said:

+1

Though I don't call that "nerfing the Marines", I call that "rebalancing the basic gear". If you mind so much, make your own "2D10+5 RoF 1/2/4 boltgun" they have to req for 25 points. But don't come up crying because they still end up fighting with that only. Marines love having their bolter, but they love as well being entrusted with some special weapon (be it plasma or melta) because these kick arses. And as the saying goes, "Space Marines are all about kicking arses and chewing bubble-gum, but in the grim darkness of M41, there ain't no bubble-gum any more..."

All this to say that plasma and melta are superior in damage output to a normal bolt, they are intended to be. That's why you have to req them. That's why a bolter with specialty ammo has to be close to them, not absolutely superior...

Everything else is arguing based on the ever-changing, easily interpretable canon...And therefore invalid

peterstepon said:

Now there would have been massive collateral damage, and you would probably see the entire planet's climate effected, with the amount of particulates thrown into the air. This would reduce the energy reaching us from the sun leading to a drop in temperature, disaterous crop failures, causing famine in many parts of the world and a worldwide economic collapse. Now, for the modern US, which 1) doesn't have this capability and 2) has certain political considerations to keep in mind which makes taking this action undesirable. The Imperium does not. Therefore orbital superiority should mean the end of almost any large scale organised military opposition. However, for the sake of the feel of the background and preserving the point of the wargame, it doesn't. Similar to Star Wars which is equally daft, if not more so (In 40k the lines of troops advancing over open ground is mostly just an affectation of the art and actual battles are meant to be slightly more sensible. In Star Wars enemies actually just advance along narrow streets in column into waiting troops... who then leave their dug in positions to stand in the open. Both sides them start to fire from the hip at each other ineffectually at 20 metres distance).

Star Trek doesn't bother much with ground combat and when it is clear that it mostly happens on a small scale. What matters is who has space ships near a planet. Now this makes sense thematically (as it is mainly about space ships flying around, rather than ground combat, unlike 40k) and also logically (they have the firepower and accuracy to wipe out any large scale military ground force without major damage to anything surround them.

Basically logically, with the technology and the particular slant of the Imperium, what should matter is control of space. For the sake of the game and the premise of the setting, it is not prime. However, this was never a logical setting so it doesn't matter much (walking armoured vehicles that should be the first things to die, the prevalence of swords and similar close combat implements and daemons).

I have a space marine avatar and I don't mind my players now having *choices* rather than either taking all the blatantly best equipment all the while. I don't think anything that makes the GMs job of balancing fights without causing a TPK or making them dull and unchallenging is a nerf.

ItsUncertainWho said:

I don't think macro cannon are supposed to be that powerful, but regardless: If that's the issue; then use a smaller gun! Orbital bombardment doesn't need to be massively destructive. But that aside, the point of holding the high ground isn't solely to use naval weaponry. Although you're at enormous advantage there. Planetary defences are by their nature wide-spread, whereas the navy can concentrate and move its firepower. And if it comes to defence suppression, then the navy has the range advantage, care of being able to flatten defence laser installations with guided munitions which far outrange lasers that have to burn through miles of atmosphere.

Orbit gives you the high ground. Your aerospace arm is at enormous advantage, while the foe's has to crawl up a gravity well every time it wants to do anything. Most importantly, you can drop troops or air-strikes or bombardment anywhere on the planet within the hour.

Ultimately, 40k spawned as a skirmish sci-fi wargame, and the fluff is going to support that. They've done some sweeping under the carpet of some strategic aspects in order to what the core ethos of the game universe is, and I can live with that. I just don't want to think about it for too long, because it doesn't make too much sense on many levels!

***

In 40k the IG are more based on the Soviets, to my mind. There's the 'quantity has a quality all of its own' mentality, coupled with masses of arty, huge reliance on armour, strict discipline where obedience is stressed over initiative, and of course: political officers. That's all pretty much the antithesis of British armed forces and an exact model of Soviet ones.

Peterstepon: Yes. Only infantry can take and hold ground. That's why they're king of the battlefield. Not even armour can do that. But you can make their job a thousand times easier by blasting everything that moves from air, in advance!

The whole way regiments are treated is quite like the British army: ie they are not fixed in size but are instead collections of sub-units for administrative purposes. However, yes, the overall image of the Imperial Guard I would put more in alluding to the Red Army.

I thought that was mainly because GW doesn't seem to be able to decide what size a Regiment is!

Regiments in the British army aren't *quite* that haphazard...

There is a short story in 'Victories of the Space Marines' that details a planet strike. They are not attempting to take over the planet but rather recover one item and then leave. Without giving away too much a company hits the ground well after Scouts have inserted and taken out key areas that would pose a threat to the Marines. I actually think this short story is a better representation of what the Death Watch could do than the Death Watch story in the novel. Suffice to say the Inquisitor's ruminations at the end of the story exemplify why Space Marines are both feared and respected.

Siranui said:

This is the biggest problem I have when people start talking about the TT fluff. In general it really is rubbish. The fluff for the tabletop has to support every faction being able to fight every other faction. That's why the every single faction is at war with every other faction simultaneously. When I run the game for my group I try to keep the general background information in mind, but I allow the players to make actual reasonable decisions, to tell a story that doesn't just involve killing everything because "That's what humans do".

My Space Marines are noble, but so are my Tau. My Orks are savage brutes who live for killing, but they can also show cunning and logic. The Tyranids are a horde of planet eating monsters, but they can be beaten. Unlike the published stories the good guys can win without having their victory tainted by the other side always having "a secret plan in motion" because my stories are allowed to end, if for no other reason than so we can tell another story.

There's actually quite a bit of drama and pathos that can be evoked if you're willing to build a background that is full of characters instead of plastic figures. To my mind these new weapon rules go a long way towards that. How you might ask? Because they allow for a viable alternative to violence. Why would you negotiate with the Tau when you have a bolter capable of wiping out a squad of Firewarriors in a turn? How can you represent the horror of a Tyranid invasion when a Heavy Bolter kills thousands of them in seconds? And why bother with the Death Watch when the basic Space Marine weapon is capable of doing this. If any Space Marine squad fresh out of the 10th Company with bolters can hold off a Tyranid invasion, why do you need a special group of Space Marines to take on the most difficult tasks.

In my mind every time I get ready to run a Death Watch game this should be going through my player's heads:

"In M41, a crack commando unit was seconded to the Death Watch. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them....maybe you can hire The Kill-Team."

Siranui said:

Well... so yeah, they haven't been able to decide a size. but regardless it was always meant to be flexible. Same as the British Army, but yes, the British army is more "A regiment may be from 1 to x battalions", rather than "2000-5 million men".

Balodek: Eh? What's your annoyance? Are you saying that in your view the grand strategies employed by the factions aren't artificial and there to support a table-top infantry skirmish game? Before Deathwatch, RT, DH, BFG, AT and all of that there was 40k the skirmish tabletop wargame. The background was written and tailored to support that conflicts that the rules portrayed could exist. That's why it was invented. Now I'm pretty sure it's now of far greater scope than imagined at the time, but that was the original setting. They dreamed up a reason for everyone to fight everyone else, and for them to do it dirt-side, with infantry.

Of course you can roleplay in it and invoke pathos. You can tell stories, you can do anything you like with it. Characterisation was always there, because skirmish wargames tend to encourage that to a greater extend than higher-level wargames.

borithan said:

Eh? So by canon a regiment is supposed to be a combined arms self-sufficient unit? /facepalm. Good ol' GW.

Siranui said:

I am saying that the strategies employed are artificial and there to support the table-top game. I fully understand the reasons behind their fluff, my point was we're here to move on and create a better game than that, and that these new weapons rules are a great way to do that because they allow the characters to become actual characters instead of a suit of power armor holding a bolter. By forcing people to think about their choice of weapons we're forcing them to think about their character and then hopefully develop them.

I'm sure there were plenty of players that didn't need these new weapons rules to do that, but I'm equally sure there were players that did. As an example from my own group, there are two Devestators. One of them used a Heavy Flamer because he liked the idea (of setting people on fire I guess). The other never planned on using anything but the Heavy Bolter because, in his own words, "Why bother?". Now he has an actual reason to do so, and my player with the Heavy Flamer isn't mechanically inferior for wanting to play a character his way.

Siranui said:

How would this work as a compromise? Keep the new Marine weapons but keep the old Tau and Tyrannid stats. That way, the Marines will not be such powerful killing machines, but will not need to hide from their enemies either. The power of all weapons will be lower so that fights will last longer and Space Marines will still feel the thrill of walking through hordes of enemy troops and having enemy weapons bounce off. Would this be a good way to reconcile those who like the errata vs. those who do not?

peterstepon said:

Probably. For those who want the TT experience, it sure is good to have those stats available though.

Alex

peterstepon said:

peterstepon said:

I haven't really looked at the alien weapons in depth, but I was thinking of doing this as well.

Here are some thoughts about how Tau and Tyrannid weapons ought to be in the errata

1/ Fleshborers should be the same as they were. Seriously, Termagaunts are the classic expendible infantry and they attack in swarms of thousands or millions, with billions in reserve. To have them armed the same as Space Marines would be wrong. They are bullet catchers for the Tyrannid horde. Since they attack in the thousands, it seems only right that they are only deadly in a horde.

2/ Devourers, maybe a small upgrade. At 1d10+6 Pen 0, it is a pop gun. Even rolling a 10 it will not scratch Space Marine Armour. The only way they could do more than scratch the paint job of Astartes armour is with Rightous Fury which is still a bunch of ifs and Maybe's.

3/ Tau Weapons should be deadly, but not 1d10 + 12. That assumes that, given the old stats, one dice would roll a 10. However, the Pulse Carbines went from 3 shots per round to only 1 so it might be combining the firepower of 3 shots into 1. How about assuming that one dice was a 7, that would be 1d10+9 Pen 4. This would still zap any imperial guardsman and put some dents into Space Marines without inadvertently zapping them too.

4/ Should the Burst cannon be downgraded like the Heavy Bolter was? How about 6 shots at full auto, with 1d10+9 Pen 4

Thoughts?

Tau pulse rifles hit with a strength rivalling a heavy bolter. 1d10+12 is nearly perfect for them.

Flesh borers are also meant to rival a bolter in terms of damage inflicted, so I personally see no problem with their new stats either.

Something to keep in mind is that a fleshborer round isn't simply a spine launched at great velocity, it's a horrible little creature which burrows its way into and gnaws at the flesh of its victim. It has a short life-span and it doesn't have great armor penetration, but if it finds an opening I have no doubt it would be capable of causing devastating and horrific injuries.

TT is a different game and all that, but that Tau standard-issue small arms are better than Space Marine standard-issue small arms is a given of the setting. They should do more damage and they should be very dangerous.

Also, if people are insisting on playing "marines like in the novels," we should also have guardsmen like in the novels and Tau like in the, er, computer games. And it is very clear from Fire Warrior that Tau pulse rifles are enough for a single Tau Fire Warrior to mop the floor with squads of Space Waffen SS er I mean Space Marines, as well as Greater Daemons. And Commissars who can fight thir way out of Commoragh.

Pssst. the novels don't make any sense or have any internal consistency. Games NEED to make sense and NEED internal consistency, e.g., rules. Therefore the novels cannot be used asa basis for what RPG characters should be able to do. The Holy Order of Tom of Finland beats a billion Dark Eldar because the writer wants them too, not because if any superior strategy or abilities that they are not described as having at any rate.

If you want to play Novel Marines (or Novel Guardsmen or Video Game Tau), what you need to do is give all player characters about 100 Fate Points each to allow them to pull off all the illogical, improbable stuff they do in the novels, and about 100 offensive Anti-Fate Points to get the NPCs to flub everything.

bogi_khaosa said:

No, for it's a Space Marine centered game. There is 3 possible interpretations: SM have the same power level as in the TT, SM have the same power level as in the novels, or something inbetween. I prefer the latter. In my game Tau basic weapons infantry are way better than Imperial basic infantry weapons, which are lasguns. Astartes Bolters are not basic, mass-produced (on a galactical scale at least) weapons but hand-crafted relics. I think they should have the edge.

bogi_khaosa said:

And in a Tau-centered game this is all fine and dandy too.

bogi_khaosa said:

But an independent game like DW does not need to be consistent with FIre Warrior nor with any other game, just needs to be consistent within itself.

bogi_khaosa said:

But Fire Warrior is because it supports your point of view, I see. Right now, you're not looking very honest in your approach.

bogi_khaosa said:

Right now DW seems to be geared toward the approach I favour the most - somewhere between novel marines and TT marines.

Alex

I am not holding up Fire Warrior as a model for anything, but just the opposite. My point was that Marines, Guardman, Tau, etc. as portrayed in novels are completely useless as models for anything, because they don't make sense either with respect to other novels or internally, because they do not follow a set of rules. Novel marines etc. do not do really well because they have incredibly high characteristics, but because the writer wants them to. Indeed, NO game is going to be able to represent novel marines because, unlike RPGs, novels have a plot, and it is impossible to have a plot in a system that uses randomized number generation to decide things.

If you want to play Novel Whatevers, get rid of dice and characteristics, decide ahead of time what is going to happen, write a script, and read the script. It will be a lot of fun.

EDIT: Just give PCs an infinite number of Fate Points, which is pretty much the only way named characters in 95% of BL publications would be able to survive in any kind of simulationist game setting. All problems will be solved.

Are you actually excited by the prospect of playing a slightly disappointing Space Marine?

Do you find youself saying, Man, I want to play a Space Marine, but not one who is Too Awesome?

I feel it would be sheer folly of the worst kind to aim a Space Marine RPG at people who don't like Space Marines.

No, a Marine RPG should be aimed fully at delivering the experience dreamed of by Marine fans, that tabletop Marines don't live up to for various reasons, none of which are relevant to an RPG.

Cause seriously why not? The only people who won't like it are people who are not interested in playing Space Marines anyway. And who gives a **** what they think?

--

I closing, I firmly believe

1: The fluff makes far more sense if Marines are superheros

and

2: People actually interested in playing Space Marines would probably enjoy them being superheros

So why not make them superheros and please people who are actually interested in the game?

AluminiumWolf said:

The problem with this point of view is whats the point in being a super hero if everything you are fighting dies in 5 seconds. If a kill team can slaughter multiple hive tyrants in 1 turn how can a GM write any form of interesting challenge? The game just boils down to "oh theres bad guys over there, ok well I roll a fistful of dice... they die" over and over again. If all you want is an RPG where you get the biggest numbers and the most wins possible just roll 50 dice, add them up, and if you have an integer you win. But I wouldn't find that very exciting.

The best thing about the optional rules is they are optional, if you still want to play marines that can kill anything in one shot go ahead no one is stopping you. But the optional rules provide a more challenging and to some people more interesting environment to play the game in where marines can still 1 shot kill large numbers of troops, but have more trouble with bosses and tanks. and if some people like each way then I cannot think of a better compromise than the one FFG have come up with, optional weapons tables.

Infact the only complaint I have to FFG is that they didn't come out and say "these optional rules are more challenging and balanced to provide a tougher game" and instead tried to make up some stuff about rolling fewer dice, which is true, because they engineered it that way, in some cases adding in a new weapon quality specifically so that they could remove dice without lowing the average damage of the weapon. They should have just marketed them as more challenging weapon stats and not bothered with stuff like proven