Just finished reading the section on Insanity and Corruption. I felt a bit disappointed tbh; it feels a bit lazy and is unclear. I understand that Marines are different and thus more desensitised to these things and so they have to be handled differently, but it's a little confusing to follow where they explain that and then provide the systems for use with non-astartes characters (who are likelty only NPC's anyway). However some of the rules I don't understand: how on earth does the battle trauma 'ear of the emperor' work? It seems to suggest that it happens at the start of th emission, not triggered as a truama. There is no errata entry for it.
There is also no explanation of how battle trauma's end and the rules seem to suggest that healing insanity points (a very vague process, almost as much as the guidance for awarding them, which is unfortuantely none) doesn't actually heal the associated problems. So a Marine that gets enough insanity to trigger a battle trauma will always suffer that trauama until he dies, the same with his primarch's curse - once he reahes the thresholds where that, at increasingly severe levels, manifests healing insanity points will have no effect on that. Is that intentional?

Also the Ultramarines seem to get off easy; their first primarch curse level is completely ineffectual since the players (and thus the ultramarine squad leader) will have zero input in what mission they are going to play since the GM wrote it and it's either that or nothing! How many GM's write up a variety of adventures (ie missions) and give the players the choice?

I also think they missed a trick with Corruption. It feels like they phoned this section in, I'm afraid. Perhaps this crosses over too much with what Black Crusde offers, but I think including a 'minigame' where marines can become corrupt, eventually being excluded from the Emperor's light, but without necessarily turning into horned goats or tentacle wielding monstrosities could be an interesting part of the game. By making it either you are either not corrupt (less than 100 points) or you are corrupt and thus unplayable misses a trick, but perhaps this is the subject of a later sourcebook/Black Crusade. After all there are 40k novels where the protagonists are chaos space marines. Such characters wouldn't even have to be avowed servants or slaves of chaos or members of the traitor legions, they could be akin to ronin. Certainly in the 40k unvierse they would be branded the same as any chaos space marine, but in the game there could be a chance for redemption perhaps while the character seeks to atone or at least stave off the enslavement of the ruinous powers?

Yes there is, but then you're completely sliding off Deathwatch (though, as you said, not really entering Black Crusade grounds...). It's some kind of gray area where the Marines are corrupted and therefore not fit anymore for their service, but did not necessarily get a change of mind.

I'd say that is where you can play it freely. These marines may become renegades (think of some Badab War chapters, or the Legion of the Damned), but as you can see, that's straying off of any of the 40k RPGs. For now

At the extreme level it's possible that this may be the purview of Black Crusade, especially given the title.

What I'm saying is the path of Corruption can be a source of plot and adventure: perhaps the Marine is toyed with, on his seemingly inexorable (no matter ow slow - Corruption would seem irreversible) journey into ruin, and tempted by Chaos. Thus why not have, for example, a Battle Trauma where the Marine hears the whispers of the ruinous powers and he has to deal with that. On a mission to find and destroy a chaos artifact this could have interesting consequnces during play. If he resists, perhaps he gains xp or something.

Deathwatch makes a point of stating that Marines are carefully screened for this kind of thing. It's really out of scope of the game though, and is really the realm of BC.

There is no way to get rid of insanities that have been picked up. If you want to prevent them, then you need to reduce them BEFORE you go over a threshold.

I completely disagree as regards the Ultramarines, and genuinely believe their level 1 curse to be potentially the deadliest out there. Ultramarines are very often the team lead, and so in the position to make the calls as to what the party are doing on-mission. Given the task of -say- infiltrating and orc encampment and killing a few choice targets, with lower priority objectives of killing the entire encampment and the two Gargants that are sat there, what are sensible players going to do? Obviously, avoid the suicidal aspects and do the job with minimum fuss. What's the Ultramarine going to do? He's going to insist on reaping every last drop of glory out of the mission. The Marine might not get to choose the mission, but they choose how it is completed, and putting a glory-boy in charge of a mission is going to make it FAR riskier.

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp

Feel free to bump and elaborate, I never came to work it out in full glory.

Alex

Siranui said:

So the guy insists on taking the most dangerous and glorious missions, but when on them can then elect to wimp out, do the easy bits and ignore the risky and glorious parts?

I think not. That may be the exact wording, but that's not the intention, and it would be poor roleplay. The intention is clearly that the marine becomes a glory hound.

If I had a player who tried dicking around with rules like that I'd give him a choice of missions alright: Either do 'X', or 'Y'. Where 'X' is a reasonable mission and 'Y' is to destroy 15 enemy Titans and an entire invasion force armed only with basic equipment. If players want to jerk me about, I can jerk about, too. It's supposed to be an actual tangible disadvantage.

Siranui said:

The squad leader is ONLY decided after the mission is taken. This means if you have a character with the curse he does't have to be squad leader. There is no where in the rules that says he has to be leader. Furthermore at the point of deciding qho is squad leader, his curse will have no effect since the mission's already been taken. The curse is ineffectual since there's no choice of mission: you play the adventure the GM writes or you go home.

The curse doesn't say that the ultramarine must insist on being squad leader or that he is automatically squad leader. It simply says he has to choose which mission to take. I'm asking: 'what choice of mission'?

This has nothing to do with playing the system. The curse's effect is predicated on the existence of a multiple choice. I personally have never been in a game where the GM gave us a choice of adventures, nor have i, as GM, presented the players with such. I write one adventure, that's it.

You are confusing mission with objective. The rules do not say objective, they say mission. It doesn't say that the ultramarine insists on completing ALL objectives, however dangerous (which might make more sense).

What you are suggesting is that you would write 3 adventures for the player to choose from. That's impractical at best: it's not WoW where the ultramarine can pull up his quest log and be forced to pick the red text quest over the green or yellow.

No, I haven't.

Firstly, there is indeed nothing to say that the Ultramarine will be 1IC. Except that he probably will. Ultramarines pretty much have the best leadership abilities, and they generally take the lead because of it. If the Ultramarine isn't the one in charge then the curse has little effect. But he probably will be. Moreso if he has later versions of the curse.

This is a roleplaying game (or at least the way I run it, it is), not a cheesy d20 game where the objective is to bend the rules, optimise, and weasel out of actually roleplaying as much as possible in some vast preparation for a career in Contract Law. Heck: If we were doing that then the Imperial Fist could just laugh at his curse and ignore it, because per RAW it has no mechanical effect. Would you let that slide?

The objectives are what the mission is made of. They *are* the mission. At the top of any orders sits the objective(s).

I'm electing for the Curse to be a disadvantage as it was clearly intended to be, instead of it doing nothing. I really don't care how much a player waves a rule-book around: The intention of this flaw is for the character to become a glory-***** and it makes absolutely zero sense for a character to want to engage in glorious and dangerous missions, only to then elect to complete them in the most conservative and non-glorious way. Rules be damned. If a player tries to get out of roleplaying his curse by quoting RAW, then I *will* give a choice of missions, and one of them *will* be suicidal but glorious. So the team can elect to either take the suicidal route, or put someone else in charge (although the Ultramarine SHOULD be roleplaying and pressing to take the most glorious mission (and if he can't be bothered to roleplay it, then that will be reflected in the lack of any roleplaying XP awards). And I'll keep doing it over and over again, mission after mission, for as long as the player is being a jerk about a roleplaying consideration. If they were unwilling to roleplay it, they should have either played something else or paid XP in order to keep their IP low enough not to be afflicted.

So you as a GM with a cursed ultramarine PC will prepare two adventures in depth, one of which will be more dangerous so as to fulfill the PC's curse?

Isn't that a bit ridiculous?

signoftheserpent said:

I don't know that two "in-depth" scenarios is what it calls for. The basic scenario is the same. EotE just calls for an added Tertiary Objective, so it shouldn't change the entire purpose of the mission. Depending on how the GM wants to run it, it could be anything from making the character swing by to save an ancient statue from rampaging Orks to defeating a Tyranid Warrior in hand-to-hand combat while wearing a peacock-type creature as headgear. In either case, it should be something to add to the original campaign, especially roleplaying, and not require an entirely new mission.

Brand said:

The curse states that the ultramarine, cursed, always goes for the most difficult mission available. GIven that mission = adventure = written by the GM for there to be a choice the GM has to plan multiple adventures otherwise the curse means nothing.

Not necessarily. You don't really need multiple scenarios planned, unless you want to do that. On a mission to rescue a planetary governor or other important person, the KT could get the message that Chaos forces had breached the south side of the city and were advancing. In that case, the Ultramarine should push to go join the fight and leave the rescuing for later.

As far as mission prep goes, you could always present multiple missions, but I don't really see the DW as working that way. Most of the time, assignments are handed down by the group's Watch Captain. The Primarch's Curse could then influence the Ultramarine to push for the more dangerous plan - say, drop podding down into an Ork encampment before pushing on to an ancient temple instead of quietly inserting in an enemy-free area and moving on to the mission's objectives from there.

Build your mission as normal with Primary, Secondary and Tertiary objectives.

Hand over orders to the players.

The UM should have the understanding that he considers all Secondary objectives to be Primary and all Tertiary are considered Secondary.

To the first part of the topic I do concur, I was a little saddened to see the corruption chart for marines be a black and white "when the tank is full quit playing your character" style. I've not used AK's thread he links to, but if I had an intention of RPing out the temptation of the marines in my group I'd definitely take those rules, massage 'em some, and then take them for a spin.

Regarding the UM curse, c'mon Sign, you're kind of hair splitting here aren't you- debating the RAW over the RAI? Do your game as you will, but personally I agree with Siranui and Uncertain here. The mission isn't a choice, but the objectives in the mission are a choice, and reading of the curse heavily implies that the UM will wander out and take on the most hazardous tasks- a glory *****- regardless of whether or not they are considered 'missions' or 'objectives.'

I see the Ultra primarch curse as following:

In an adventure you are given a mission to clear a nest of enemy out of a bunker up ahead. You may a. march straight ahead taking fire while you cross the kill-zone. b. sneak around through the nearby forest and take them from the side, or c. Use guile to try to get one or your squad close enough to open up a whole in the fire zones of the bunker.

An Ultra always looking for the most difficult missions would take a. in a heartbeat.

The stories you are participating in are actually adventures. This is what "roleplaying" stories are called, not missions. You can actually have several "missions" in a single "adventure", or you may only have one. You may be briefed your going on one "mission" then as the story evolves it gets more complicated, your PCs start choosing what they should do, you gain more missions etc. Its all dependent on the complexity of the adventure. I don't doubt you believe increadibly strong in your own logic, but I'm very certain the Deathwatch designers didn't make this curse so the marine would have to choose one or another adventure the GM has prepared, GMing isn't a full time job you know this game is ment to be fun, for everyone.

Some of you may start crying, "oh boo hoo hoo, the DW book calls them missions..." etc etc. ad infinatum. But this is semantics. The "mission" a GM prepares is an adventure. The "missions" described in the Ultra curse are what a military man would consider a mission. I.e. you are given orders to complete a. b. and c. While completing this "mission" you learn more about the "mission-adventure" by discovering info about x. and y. and either decide whether its your duty or not to deal with them as well. Therefore you can have multiple "missions" in a single "mission-adventure".

ItsUncertainWho said:

Not only that but as a GM you can simulate that by upping the difficulty of all missions a bit. You put in extra enemies or increase stats of enemies slightly - to simulate that there have been more missions available than the current one and the UM pegged the Captain for this one because it was more challenging than the others.

No, it's not strictly simulationist, yes, it's a bit of a gamey approach but it works, just don't go overboard with making the mission more difficult. Just a bit will suffice.

Alex

herichimo said:

The rule says that the ultramarine will select the most dangerous mission. How can he select when the only choice is what the GM has prepared (whether you call it a mission or an adventure is immaterial; DW uses the word mission to mean the same thing given it's miltary style) or not to play. I personally won't write multiple missions, because it's a waste of my time - i'd create one that was deliberately weak knowing the pC's had to choose the main one, so why bother with the pretence at all?

I think what peopel are doing is confusing objectives with missions. They are distinct and separate. Now if the curse said: the ultramarine will be compelled to complete all objectives, regardless of risk factor or expediencey, not just the primary, i'd say that makes sense. But that is an entirely separate idea to what was written. I think people are misunderstanding what I'm saying. This isn't about rulesmongering it's about the practicality of that rule. If the writers intended something else entirely then they should have been more clear (i see no errata for it either). What people here have done is deliberately or unintentionally misunderstood what the rule says. I have no problem with people revising the rule to suit their needs, if they think they can do it better.

What you are talking about is how the marine approaches the objective, which is the second part of that curse. That itself raises problems, if you have a squad leader forced to pick the most dangerous course of action (which isn't the same thing as mission) everytime:

It completely shuts down player interaction and discuission of kill team strategy which is a big no no in my book. For example, the killteam have assessed two ways to get to the enemy bunker: if they sneak round the back the techmarine can hack their way in, or they can yell 'for the emepror' and rush headlong to the more defensible front entrance. Well, there's no discussion is there, the ultramarine is going to overrule the choice, the techmarine player is going to be pissed off because he can't contribute and the game gets stupid because everyone's character is now, probably quite needlessly, put into a great deal of danger in a way the players cannot control. That's bad gaming. Either that or the curse is meaningless. Therefore sensible players, who will get accused of 'gaming the system' will vote not to allow the ultramrine to lead the squad!

This wouldn't be so much of a problem if the rules allowed marines to heal their mental disorders, but once you have a curse - you're cursed. Same as insanities and corruption. I understand that this is 40k, but I think this should be reconsidered because it is basically saying 'your character is now screwed and it's only a matter of time before you have to give up' which is a poor signal to players that have invested in that character. you might argue that it's their reward for bad decisions as soldiers, but that' snot always going to be the case. You fight chaos, you score corruption - that's the setting. However there does need to be a compromise, especially with rules that mean an ultramarine squad leader is dooming his squad - if that is how the curse is going to work. What's the point of contributing tactically if the game is going to be reduced to 'over the top boys!' everytime?

signoftheserpent said:

That's not what I wrote. I very clearly specified what I'd do if a player started trying to rules lawyer out of roleplaying a flaw.

Flaws are a disadvantage. If they don't come up, then there not a disadvantage.

As a GM, I expect a player leading a team with this Curse to want glorious and difficult missions, and to complete them in a glorious manner. That means that if there's a secondary objective of 'kill the orc warlord' or similar; I expect them to go for it. If a player starts being a jerk and trying to tell me 'killing the warlord isn't the mission, and my Curse only says that I want a glorious mission, and we don't get to choose those, so my flaw has no effect', THEN I play hardball.

signoftheserpent said:

Roleplay, not rollplay.

Alternatively, I'm pretty darned sure that there's a bit in the rules somewhere that outlines Rule 0: It doesn't matter what the rules say, it's what the GM says.

Siranui said:

Agreed!

Sign, you've missed the whole point I was trying to make. You are so caught up in your own logic you seem to have refused to see any other options. If this is the case, I am sorry for you. you are missing the whole point behind the game and won't get as much out of it as others will.

As a military veteran myself, I am well aware of what a mission and an objective is. These adventures GMs make, with multiple branching story-lines, multiple side missions, and even changing objectives aren't what I'd call simply a single mission. Sure the Deathwatch NPCs might send you on a mission to start the adventue, well thats just the first of many possible missions your kill-team may have to complete in the adventure. Stop trying to twist RAW into whatever you're trying to twist it into, thats not roleplaying. Roleplaying is about RAI, the curses are there to put a bit of contention between the different chapters, oportunities for roleplaying. No the Ultramarine doesn't have to overrule the group, 4 to the ultra's 1 = ultra doesn't get his way (even if he's the team leader, thats not how team leaders work in this game), now its up to the ultramarine player to either abandon his battle-brothers to take on the super-difficult mission on his own (selfish, narcisistic, completely against Astartes ideals) or to roleplay the Ultramarines angst and feelings of inadaquacy for abandoning what he felt was his duty. Thats Roleplaying. Roleplaying isn't saying, "GM you need to make 2 adventures, and my character will pick which one the whole kill-team will go on because of this curse." Thats just rediculous.

Siranui said:

You are again using objectives to make your point, but that part of the curse doesn't talk about objectives.

Siranui said:

signoftheserpent said:

2 points: in The Russian's PbP game we got two kill-teams. So selecting the more dangerous (part of the) mission is a possibility. Secondly, if you are intent on being to literalist: it says 'The Battle-Brother always volunteers his Kill-team for the most dangerous or challenging Missions whenever possible and always ensures his team is where the fighting is the thickest. '

As such I find it to be the most severe Primarch's Curse ever.

Alex

herichimo said:

herichimo said:

I think you are conflating mission and objective, and that is not how the curse works.

I can understand you might want to change the curse so it suits your game. That's fine. But it's also not what I'm discussing. There is an argument for changing the curse to work by way of compelling the ultramarine to pursue ALL the objectives as if they were primary objectives. However that is not how the curse works.

Again: the curse says that the squad leader will choose the most dangerous missions. that is not choose the most dangerous objectives. Even if it did it would still not work. The squad leader doesn't choose those objectives, he pursues them to the best of his ability as all marines do. The primarty objective is likley the most dangerous objective anyway (even if it's more dangerous to try and pursue ALL objectives than only the primary and perhaps the secondary) - and how can he choose to pursue objectives? The primary objective, likely even the secondary objective (assuming there are multiple objectives), is the mission - choosing not to pursue them, which is the implication here, is the same as choosing not to play the game. So i ask: what practical effect does the curse have as written.

And following it as written isn't rules lawyering. Rules lawyering is manipulating the rules to suit yoruself, such as pursuing the best buidl to make a marine that can't miss when he shoots or something (i have no idea how possible that is). Following the curse is to follow a rule that inhibits the marine so it's the precise opposite of rules lawyering. Again if you want to change the way the curse works then that's entirely your choice.