Just had an epiphany on how to make use of the Codex Astartes (or rather knowledge of it) in game:

Normally I don't allow too much communication between players during combat (that is in Cyberpunk or Fantasy games). However, the Codex Astartes represents the sum of Astartes battle lore of millenia, codified and systematically structured.

So as a result I think I will allow players belonging to codex-adherent chapters to freely communicate with each other in combat. A complex tactical advice might in-game break down to "Brother Titus, Cania protocol, verse 14, section B". Every member of a chapter that adheres to the codex will understand. If the communoication is very complex, interrupt the player and have the receiver make a codex skill roll to continue the discussion.

Non-codex chapters will either have developed their own battle lore and communicate with each other in a similar way but cannot exchange in complex exchange with codex chapters - or they rely much on instinct anyway (I'm looking at you, Space Wolves). If they have the Codex skill though, they may understand with a successful roll. Very complex debates will demand more difficult roles.

Not bad for an ad hoc idea. Now I only need a good ruling on how to integrate/combine codex astartes lore with tactics and I'm good to go.

Alex

I do not really understand where you are going with this, because I cannot imagine the practical application. I think it would be great roleplaying if the players would start giving instuctions based on passages from the codex, but I cannot link it to whether or not your players are allowed to speak often.

In my games the players and I are discussing the whole time. In and out of character they ask questions about possibilities, discuss tactics and approaches, compare options and weapon load-outs. So I have a hard time understanding: "in my games I allow minimum talking by the players." I do not know how to roleplay if the players just have to shut up, listen and throw their dice on command of the GM...

Watch-Captain Albus said:

Because in a cyberpunk game (during a combat) when it is a player's turn, I might tolerate a bit of input from the other player's but if it gets too much, I'll interrupt them all and ask for a decision from the player whose turn it is. It keeps a fair amount of pressure on the player and keeps the pace of combat high. This leads to the party in Cyberpunk games not always acting highly coordinated but rather ad hoc and occasionally even conflicting (as in one player's actions undermine the strategy the other player has been pursuing).

I was alluding to me being much more lenient in Deathwatch RPG in particular when Codex-adherent chapters involved. We're having here Elite warriors with a battle lore that is millenia's old and has been tested (and passed the tests) on a multitude of different planets and applied under very varied circumstances. So let them during combat debate and form a coherent strategy together. For the most part.

Watch-Captain Albus said:

Well, every GM is different, every group of gamers is different and in some cases, GMs GM differently when playing different games/in different themes.
Much discussion is counter-productive in grim, fast-paced cyberpunk games. (I would also argue for that in dark and dirty fantasy like WFRP).

So this topic might not relevant for everybody but I felt like sharing, just in case.

Alex

I rather have the impression that you prefer action-oriented games. That's nice, and I can understand that too much talking and discussing messes up the pace of the action. OK, I understand a bit better now. My games are a little less action-oriented, I like it when my players try to solve mysteries, start discussions with NPCs and think up strategies for the next battle. Like you said, every GM has his style.

It'd be like a bad spy story, "Remember Berlin back in '72?"

Its a pretty good way of RPing out the inevitable party telepathy during combat.

No, don't get me wrong: I see this from an artistic side. In my view Cyberpunk games need to run for the most part like the movie "Aliens": once the pace picks up in never really slows down. You have a few moments of respite before the film hammers at its viewers again. My Cyberpunk/Shadowrun rounds are like that.

This makes much less sense in other settings; I don't think it would make as much sense in Rolemaster or D&D (except in an ambush situation perhaps).

So, in short I see pacing as part of the whole (whether in film or gaming) and it has to fit the overall theme. Keeping a good pacing is also required in DW but the pressure needn't be as high as in Cyberpunk, where the game generally calls for being fast and furious.

Alex

PS I'd also like to add that my games are normally more role-playing oriented. I remember a Rifts scenario I devised in which we had two long gaming sessions in a row with one relatively short fight total - that left my players with an itchy trigger finger the following session. The whole scenario was planned for 3 or 4 sessions and eventually took... 6, I think. Well, it was a whodunnit scenario and the players were not picking up the right clues and only after shoving them eventually into their faces they realized that their worst fears would become true and it was actually the cyberknights in their monastery who did it. Followed by a short, brutal fight.

ak-73 said:

I actually think that's a great idea. Every marine comes with knowledge of the codex as a starting skill and this gives players a practical application for it. I'll probably incorporate this into my game too. I limit what players can "discuss" at the tabletop after running my first D&D campaign where players (and obviously by extension their characters) would come up with intricate battle plans involving coordination across multiple actions/classes/players in the 5 seconds after they were completely suprise ambushed. I allow a few words as a free action and lengthier orders as bigger actions but this method incorporates a skill check to allow the latter while using the former... I like it! I'd probably incorporate a penalty/bonus system based on how "codex" compliant the chapter is in the fluff for the roll.

As for incorporating tactics, my general idea is that if a player spends their reaction to guage the battlefield and makes his tactics roll successfully, I generally give him some nugget of fluff info (that xenos gunner on the ledge is precariously leaning a bit to far.. if you shoot him from this angle, he'll get less cover and be at a penalty to dodge) or allow him to choose someone else to coordinate with, giving that other player an "aid another" bonus of 10% if they gang up on the same target. For incoporating it specifically with the codex skill, I'd probably say that a successful tactics check would allow someone who is observing (but not necessarily privy to the verbal codex lore command/skill check) to get the benefit of knowing what is going on. For instance, you've got a ravenguard sniper that infiltrated ahead of the DW squad. The rest of the squad uses hand singles or point to point audio comms to communicate "Codex Alpha 4-niner Xerios" attack pattern. Since the Raven guard guy is too far to communicate this, I'd allow him to observe for a full action and guess the pattern with a tactics check.

I was wondering in how far you can substitute Codex Astartes lore for Tactics. I am not quite convinced that it could work the other way around: if you reference a specific section of the Codex, someone not familiar with it would not get what was meant.

Otoh, if you may not have studied armoured warfare in depth but have a good (or very good) knowledge of the Codex, can you take the test with SL(Codex) instead? How would you modify the difficulty?

And a Tactics related question: if you have Tactics(Armoured Warfare) (or substitute it with Codex lore) - how does that translate to actually leading an IG tank platoon in battle? Marines aren't supposed to command/lead guards (or only to a degree)... how much training would they have had in military strategy outside of Astartes combat? How applicable is their Tactics/Codex lore to leading IG or the Navy?

Alex

ak-73 said:

I've always pictured Codex skill as the theoretical to the Tactics practical, similar to how electrical engineering relates to being an electrician. Knowing one may help with the other but doesn't replace it.

I'm thinking of limiting communications bewtween players to what can be said in character. Either on relatively long sentence or sring of words (Brother, Voronius. Target the Hive Tyrants Left Leg while I Charge from the right. On my mark. NOW!") Or two shorter (Target the enemy on the left! Watch out from sipers in the tree line!").

They are only allowed to comment out of character and give each other advice on actions and the combat in general if they pass a tactics test. This should be interessting to try out.

Not bad for an ad hoc idea.

I think it's a bad idea bordering on being horrible.

I can't see how this rule ties with the codex astartes, as no tactical manual will use complex names while describing practical applications. Try finding a USA infantry tactics manual from the 60s (they are free and legal right now), you won't find any fancy names like Brécourt Manor Assault, but you will find things like "assaulting a fortified artillery position". Using fancy names would fall under Ciphers (chapter runes). Also no single marine has the whole codex inside his brain, even the Ultramarines memorize only portions of it.

If you don't want the players to talk between each other during combat then just tell them, don't invent a new rule that has no real world inspiration.

Arag said:

There is no accounting for taste.

Arag said:

As long as relevant portions are memorized, it's fine. Certainly good enough for a non-simulationist game. As for your other point of criticism, I'll refer you over to guess what the roman catholic church. Well-versed priests can send messages to each other by referencing the Bible ("Ezra 7:14") very quickly.

And I would expect codex-chapter marines to be at least as versed as a priest is in the Bible. Especially once marines reach the 100 year age.

Arag said:

Your view on the matter has been taken note of.

Alex

ak-73 said:

This is pretty much what I do. Allowing players to 'talk tactics' during combat is generally a bad idea. It spoils the sense of urgency, turns every individual choice into a team decision, removes the fog of war, and slows the game down. I don't like it in 99% of games. However, I feel that the PC's level of uberness in DW demands a different approach. So Instead of constantly pressuring players by saying 'five second combat rounds... do something in the next three seconds or lose your turn' or answering complex questions about ranges and terrain with 'you're glancing out from cover while eight people with automatic weapons are shooting you, and three people are screaming stuff: If you want to know, it'll cost you a turn and a perception check', like I do in other RPGs, I use a different play-style in DW.

To whit: Players are uber soldiers, tactically trained and practised to a degree better than anyone around the table. They are not going to make 'player mistakes'. This gives them leeway, in my book. My general guidelines are:

1) They can talk a lot more in combat, and communicate freely and at length (Caveat: Unless it slows the pace of the game down too much. I want action movie, not gritty technothriller. A quick conversation on tactics is fine, but I don't like losing pace). I assume that they are communicating either by hand-signal, or by short, pre-arranged verbal short-hand, or simply that they don't *need* to communicate, because their characters are so co-ordinated that they have practiced a thousand times.

2) I often assume that they've talked out a 'plan' before-hand, off camera. They are merely carrying out part of that plan.

3) I don't ask for party 'marching order' very often, or ask how they are breaching doors. I always assume that they are in the best possible formation for the situation, and that they are tactically in the best position. This speeds the game up, because I no longer need to ask them to clarify petty stuff.

4) I assume that someone is looking in each direction, and has a firearm pointed that way, all the time. The party are not going to neglect covering an air duct so that a genestealer can jump out, even if the party members don't mention it to me.

5) They don't make stupid mistakes that are obvious to their characters.

All of the above reinforces just how cool the players are and removes a lot of the petty faffing ('who's going through the door first? Is it George? George will cover the left') that slows the game down and gets in the way of action.

As to the 'hows' of data being communicated quickly, there are lots of viable ways:

1) The suggestion of reference to Chapter and Verse, as per the Bible reference is both thematic and effective.

2) Pre-arranged rune transmissions or burst transmissions.

3) The characters aren't communicating and don't need to. They are just carrying out existing drills. Bob doesn't need to tell Bill "Make sure you cover the far door" because Bill's character has performed the breach-drill in practice halls a thousand times and is already doing it. Even modern soldiers don't need to have a five minute 'how do we storm this bunker' conversation, because they don't NEED to.

4) The characters are co-ordinated enough to take non-verbal queues. Experienced dancers 'lead' with their body, and their dance partner follows those leads to create what onlookers might consider a choreographed routine in an ad hoc manner.

5) Short commands and hand signals, as used on today's battlefields. With a few swift words, soldiers can already convey tactical information quickly. Marines should be able to as well.

As to disliking the idea based on the fact that PCs have not memorised the whole Codex... that's not very valid. Every US grunt has not read every US field manual and operating manual in the US military... but they have read and assimilated those that are applicable to their role. A typical Marine almost certainly hasn't got around to reading the Volumes of the Codex about grand strategy, naval operations, logistic chains for siege artillery, or conducting courts of enquiry, but he will have read the mere few thousand pages on small-unit tactics.

As to how to integrate this with the3 Tactics skill... I tend to use the tactics skill to throw players bones, during their planning. I also came up with some mechanics which I integrated into a Salamander Squad Mode ability, that is now mooted, but which is perfectly viable to be used by anyone. It went something like:

If the team are planning stuff, and come up with a non-stupid plan between them, I ask for an (appropriate) tactics roll, which I modify dependant on how accurately they've predicted the situation and how good I thought their planning session was. Success and every DoS after the first gives the party a one-shot bonuses to use *So long as they are sticking to the plan in broad terms*. They can use each of these as and when needed to

Give a team member +5 initiative OR Give a character a skill (not combat) re-roll OR Give a character a +10 bonus on an attack.

Basically, it gives players a reason to plan, and a reason to stick to that plan. It also helps prevent the *enormous* frustration of the players planning for 30 minutes, only for it to be rendered moot by the first dice roll they make.

Plus the comparison of the Codex Astartes to a US field manual from the 60s is laughable from an Astartes viewpoint (not from mine, so please: no offense intended, seriously). Sun Tzu's Art of War is also worthless toilet paper compared to it.

The Codex Astartes is the sum of millenia of fighting. Fighting on all kinds of planet, under all kinds of circumstances, against the most varied of xeno species. It is revered (to varying degrees) as a quasi-holy treatise (Novamarines anyone?). It's pretty much the epitome of (super-)human tactics and procedures.

When a kill-team switches into Fire For Effect, it follows protocols passed and refined through the generations, practiced over and over and over again by 100+ years super-human veterans who spend 19 hours a day practicing and meditating. Every day of their lives. It's as much a rite as military operational procedure.

Space Wolves hunt by legendary instinct though (to contrast it all) and based on stories from the elders (wisdom of the ancients).

Alex

hey hey!

Not to derail this thing, but...wasn't the Codex written by Big Rob the Ultramarine Primarch, back in the day? Seems to me, if that's the case, that it could not therefore be a treatise on the past 10,000 years of war (as, it would seem, the Tactica Imperialis would be). Just wanna clarify which stratego-tactical reference book we're usin'....(as, it seems to me, the Tactica would be an exhaustive multi-volume endless work; the Codex is complete and perfect....but now a memory surfaces, of the oldest known copy of the Codex....apocryphon of skaros??? something like that....so, it seems the codex is not necessarily as reliable as we might want it to be.......blasted grimdark!! This leads me to think that there may be debates and schisms amongst the Ultra successors regarding the true nature and content of the Codex.....)

And, yeah, neither one compares to the US army's G.I. field manual (that'd be the Imperial Guardsman's Uplifting Primer...)