Narkasis Broon said:

As long as these rules remain optional there is nothing wrong with that. But my fear is that these rules become the official ones and are designed to bring the GK from the upcoiming Daemonhunter together with DW. I've always asked myself how they integrate GK who are much better than normal SM into DH where even a DW character looks like Godzilla in comparison to the other characters. I hope at least Mark of the Xenos will stick to the old Rules for alien Weapons.

Remember that a Marine is a Godzilla for a Rank 1 DH character. Compare him to an Ascended character, and it makes much more sens already. Marines are more versatile, better equiped and much more resilient but they do not utterly destroy DH characters (see the Assassins who can get up to absolutely silly numbers of Dodges and % of chance to Dodge...).

So, we'll see about that for Grey Knights. Honestly, if a Grey Knight has better weapon than a Deathwatch Marine, that wouldn't be such a surprise to me. As long as they do not completely outclass the DW weapons. But we'll see.

I am a fan of space marines. I have been since I first read Rogue Trader in the 80s. I own over 100 space marine models, plus vehicles. I own every Deathwatch book.

Yet I want my space marines to have a challenge. While I want an experienced (IE, rank 5+) to be able to go toe to toe with daemon princes and the like, I want to start as a normal marine and earn it. For me, TT defines the world, and I want an RPG that reflects it.

What's the point of playing a superhero if there are no supervillains?

I don't think anyone really believes tabletop Marines are capable of doing the things the fluff requires of them.

I guess for me the fluff defines the world and tabletop never comes close to reflecting it. But an RPG can. No one has to paint 50,000 orks just to sweep them off the table with a brush every time a Marine attacks. No one is losing money because you only need two Marines to make up an army. We can finally make Marines who can actually do what the fluff says they can.

And it goes beyond that - I want to see Marines as cool as anything movies or video games can put out. We should be proceeding as if James Cameron has just spent $250 million on a 3D Space Marine spectacular. I mean, it is an RPG. There is no special effect budget. If we want a billion ork assault wave attacking a hive with a 100 billion inhabitants, Bing - there it is. No one should ever look at a character from another property and think 'Man, I wish Marines were as cool as that!'

Marines are the biggest thing in hobby gaming. They should act like it.

They don't need to kill billions of orcs with a strike, though.

Fluff defines everything? Sure. But what exactly is the fluff? Is it Dan Abnett's novels? Is it the side quotes in the codices from the tabletop (some of them quite awesome, too)? You can't define "the" 40k fluff because it depends on who is writing (and a bit on who is reading, too).

That's why we have to think differently here: we also have to consider the fact that an RPG where challenge is down to not rolling 95-100 when you're firing your bolter is boring as hell. In an RPG, gameplay challenge is what makes the act of rolling the dice interesting. If it's not, then forgo the dices, write a little story about how the whole population of orcs in the Galaxy attacks Watch Station Erioch while one Kill-Team (the PCs', of course) is defending it, and do some narrativistic RP. It exists, but you don't need rules for it.

Honestly, your description fits Wushu much better than "classical" RPG. FFG's rendition of the Space Marines pleases me: they kick asses pretty bad, they are tough as hell and it takes big baddies to bring them down. That's the way I see them. That's the way an interesting hero stands, as far as I'm concerned. And that's the way I read "the" fluff. Or "a" fluff, at least. Superheros? Yay. Invincible and unstoppable killing machines? Nay.

I think everyone holds the middle ground here; just to varying degrees.

I don't think anyone wants a marine to get hit with a lasgun and have a 1-in-6 (or whatever it is in TT) chance of falling over, so we all clearly want something greater than TT marines.

And I don't think any of us quite want to throw the rules out of the window and roll in some superheroic system instead, where the PCs can pretty much do whatever.

So we all want 'novel marines' to some degree. It's just that interpretation differs. Which is fine. The only people who actually need to share anyone's individual view on how good marines should be are the people who are sitting around the same gaming table.

AluminiumWolf said:

It's kind of a bummer for this position that most people who are actually interested in the game, at least judging by the comments here, are not, in fact, interested in them being superheroes. That's only you, a subpopulation of 1, not enough to keep FFG in business.

AluminiumWolf said:

I'm not quite sure what lead you to that, but as the above poster stated: If you actually want to play Marines as superheroes, then DW is not and never ever will be the right rule system to use. If that is what you want, then Wu Shu or Feng Shui should be the book that you buy. These games are highly narrative and much more suitable for your needs.

Just a thought,

As a GM I know it is tough to write any kindof interesting story when there are no adversaries that can stand up to Marines in terms of power.

I also think that in an average gaming group the person most into the setting is most likely to be a GM and the most likely to post on this forum

Is it possible that this forum is biased by having mostly opinions of people who GM more than they play? What do people think about this?

Maybe.

But if the GM has to "suffer" (and I use that word because having to throw enemies you know will do nothing at your players is in no way fun) then it's as idiotic as giving the players no chance to win. When we're talking about balance, it's to ensure that players and GMs get their part of the fun.

bogi_khaosa said:

I don't run my game the way Wolf suggests either but I like his enthisiasm. And to be honest, it'd be interesting to play in such an over-the-top game and see how that works out and how that can be made interesting and fun for the players.

Alex

PS About GMs: GMs are FFG's prime customers, of course. Oftentimes a prospective GM buys more than he'll ever play or use in a game. So the opinions of those who come here seem to be quite relevant in extrapolating from it the views of the buying customers at large.

As for DW I'm only a player and so I'm only interested in the balance between the weapons and not the problems GM's have to find the right challenges. It is strange to see most people still play RPG's as a competition. We stopped playing this way back in the 80's with the advent of Cyberpunk 2020 and our GM's (we run several games and rotate this job) never roll the dice open and although everyone in our group knows how much wounds a Hive Tyrant has the beast doesn't die before the GM says so.

Rolling dice is good for minor challenges and is no guidline to find out if someone beats the foe but to find out how long it will takes. As an old rule says "If it has stats, you can kill it!". As in most adventure-stories an unclimbable wall is more challenging than the mighty dragon. A Hive Tyrant is not the master challenge but the master delay. But this attitude must sound oldfashioned in a time where even online RPG's are about slaying foes and collecting upgrades (not to mention shooters) again. This is funny because we thought we left D&D and this concept behind.

It's not about competition. It's about the interest of the game.

If the Kill-Team washes a Tyrant out in one turn and the GM has to say "Oh yeah he's not dead" where he obviously is, there's a problem.

That's why the balance has to be done between weapons (so that players have some variety to chose from instead of the boooooring "bolter+fire selector+loads of specialty ammo") AND with the other elements from the game.

If the GM has to make all his mooks survive artifically, then you don't need rules. Rules are there to simplify things, if they don't, you play without the rules

Stormast said:

Yes, with the players who think there is a problem!

Kain McDogal said:

Some players actually like the stability of rules; they make things cleaner. If your character is able to do a bajillion damage in one turn and it doesn't kill the Tyrant, many (not all) players will roll their eyes and go 'oh, well this is a plot monster at this point, I'll just keep shooting at it until the GM decides that the thing is dead.'

Hand waving over elements like this can often make players feel that they're along for the ride of the GM's story rather than being the central part of it, which in my experience isn't really that fun for most of the people involved. All the fancy gear they carry, all the XP they spent making their characters better, none of it matters because the GM will decide what happens when.

There are many ways around this mind you- from making the Tyrant (or whatever big bad guy you're using) a special character of some kind, be it a mutation, recurring villian, etc., describing how he's 'different' from the one that all the players have read about in the core book, describing the scene cleverly, staging the encounter in such a way as to reduce the chance of the devstator one shotting the thing, etc., but at some point the PCs need to be rewarded for being lucky and/or smart.

Just make 'em fight Old One Eye. Again and again and again...

Kain McDogal said:

I have to fundamentally disagree. The theme of Deathwatch is epicness. Great heroism. And there cannot be great heroism without great adversity. That's also why I don't adopt AluminiumWolf's approach to DW too: you need enemies that are truly frightening to the PCs. If they can overcome them somehow (and that's the point to creating great BBEGs: make them so powerful that you as as GM find it hard to see how the players could possibly win but only barely so), that creates much more elation than blasting all xenos away at will. And you need living beings to produce such elation - a soulless unclimbable wall is less personal (Unless we're talking about a soulless steel rod, of course. ) than defeating the Dagon Overlord once and for all. Finally.

And I'd also like to add another thing: my players are never as frightened as when I start to rolling dice openly. They know or strongly suspect (correctly so) that I occasionally fudge the dice to keep things on track. But open dice rolling suggests: there is no GM safety net, guys, this time you're out on your own.

And, yes, the BBEG in that style of gaming is not merely the master delay. Instead it puts the players into a do-or-die situation and you as a GM can lean back and watch how and if they manage. As a player, I dislike games where victory against a major antagonist is a foregone conclusion and only a matter of when and not if.

In fact I associate that attitude rather with 21st century video games where the difficulty level has severely decreased in order to not frustrate after-work gamers who don't want to come home and turn on their PlayStation in order to experience more frustration - but instead seek validation in Video RPGs Lite, RPGs that are easy to defeat. Compare that with old school video games like Elite where you had to overcome significant amounts of frustration to even successfully land your Cobra Mk III. (So much for the 80s.)

Alex

I dunno. I've played useless losers in Call of Cthulhu, useless loser Vampires in Vampire, useless losers in WFRP, useless loser knights in Pendragon, useless losers in Dark Heresy and a long string of useless losers in unbranded GURPS games.

If ever there is a time in all of gaming when I want to stretch out and let the power fantasy to flow through my veins, it is when I am playing one of the finest warriors in the universe - the Space Marines.

How long can you play an unstoppable super hero that breezes through all challenges and still have fun? I admit playing at the peak of the game and beating the crap out of everything that comes at you can be a blast, but IMHO the flavor runs out after a bit. It's like playing a game with god mode on- it's fun for a while, but eventually most of us want to be tested in some way. Again, like watching superman fight street thugs all day- one or two scenes in the movie is fun, but if that's all you get...

As for useless losers in games, do you think that's an issue with the system or the GM? I've played my share of badass investigators, knights, and vampires- how badass all depended on the flavor the GM was going for. And as has been said by others, I certainly have an easier time adjusting balance at lower levels of power rather than higher, even when going for an epic and powerful feel.

ak-73 said:

I agree on this one but what respectable GM takes his BBEG out of the box (books)? This is the reason we never play pregenerated adventures. You will have to tweek so many things to suit the adventure to the player's party, that it is often easier to develop your own. As someone mentioned rules are necessary to make things easier and to speed up play, but when it comes to the great climax you got all the time in the world (or very little in case you build in a counter) and it's about acting together and not about dishing out damage, so you have to built in weakspots of some kind.

This all means the hardest working man in a group is always the GM and no book can make this job easier!

Back to point. If the old weapon stats (especially the RoF) lead to many dead baddies and a party which is bored because there are no real challenges, than it's not the fault of the weapons but of a lazy GM. If the old weapon stats lead to players stick to their starting gear because it's much better and some player always shines out the others because of his superior gear than it's the fault of the weapons and they have to be balanced, which means nerfing the HB and upping plasma and melta guns.

We tried to play with modified optional rules (with old RoF) and it appears that it's still more effective to stick to Bolters, which means the Damage and the AP-potential for plasma and melta guns has to increase much more. So far only lazy GM seem to be the winner.

Epic-level games require epic level challenges. Otherwise it's just kinda like sitting there, jerking off. There's simply no point in playing a powerful character who can breeze through everything in one combat round. This is why the Greek heroic legends are about guys who have to go and fight ridiculous foes that they can't even beat in straight fights, and need to go questing for something that gives them an edge. 'Herecles versus the 50 sick lepers' is not going to be a great tale, no matter how kick-ass Herecles is.

Kain McDogal said:

Well; there's your problem, then. Try playing them with the new damage and the new RoF. It's frankly unreasonable to only use half the changes and then state that they aren't enough.

Goodness me, I didn't mean to bring out such hate for GM's, after all GM's are the best guys in the world, they fork out for the books, spend hours and hours of their time coming up with good ideas, hours more of their time trying to come up with challenging and interesting encounters, and then, not only does the GM not get to be a super 1337 space marine, but also players enter into this sport of "who can **** up the GM's plans the most" admitedly I play in a society gaming group where I don't get to choose my group (it's part of the societies mission statement that everyone gets to play if they want to play)

and I don't think theres anything lazy about not wanting every monster that you want to survive a round to have 300 wounds. If one full auto burst can fell a 120 wound hive tyrant it only takes a dev with heavy bolter, and a tac and tech with storm bolters to absolutely liquefy an enemy in one round of fighting. especially the tac marine who (if he is going up against tyranids) takes a storm bolter clip of hellfire which hit 8 times, inflict righteous fury if any of the 3 dice per hit roll a 9 or a 10 and ignore the tyrants armour. Now i like it when my players are prepared, If I think they will need a specific piece of gear for a mission I will include it in the briefing. And contrary to what players think its not a competition between players and GM, if it were there would be no way for the players to win. a GM just has to say "a massive warp rift opens and the planet is destroyed" if he actually wants the players dead. as others on this thread have said its about threat, wheres the fun in being powerful if you never have to actually use that power because the enemies die effortlessly? I just don't understand it

Narkasis Broon said:

What he said...

Just the same here.

Siranui said:

We already did this before and after we realized an Astartes Storm Bolter with the new RoF is outclassed by a Sororitas Storm Bolter from Blood of the Martyrs, so we used the old RoF instead. This was not unreasonable but an attempt to find find stats that work. So if you wnat to use DH, DW and RT together you simply CAN'T use the optional rules as they were written. You can eliminate Fully Automatic Fire for all Bolters in every game, but then an autogun, with Man-Killer ammo is superior to a Bolter. This is the reason, why they even changed an Autogun's RoF in the optional rules, but this would make Acolytes in DH very unhappy.

Conclusion: The damage (or better the AP-potential) for Plasma Guns and Meltas is to low, even under the optional rules!

I'm curious about the Ork Guns in Mark of the Xenos. If they use high RoF like in RT or DH my search for the optimal Astartes Weapon Stats is finished and we stick to the old rules. Sadly my Tac has be content with his Bolter and has only Relics to crave for.