I think the Vindicare has some serious problems, but the problems the Vindicare has aren't actually the fault of the Vindicare career itself - more they are faults in the core system taken to the extreme end point. The 40K RPGs have no fail conditions other than for BS Tests with shooting weapons. There's some vague stuff about a 1 always being a success and a 100 always being a fail, but putting that aside you can end up in a place where it is possible to auto-pass Tests and you're only rolling to determine Degrees of Success. This is a huge problem in Deathwatch more than any other game, especially when you can be in a situation where, due to size modifiers, craftsmanship of weapon and other bonuses you have over a 100 To Hit, and a 100 to Parry, meaning you hit automatically, and then Parry automatically (and then hit again with Counter-Attack).

It's not such a big deal in DH or even RT, but the Vindicare takes this issue to its fullest extent - you can have a 110 to Dodge with a Vindicare, and he can Dodge 6 times a round, and Dodge anything. If 96+ was always a fail for Dodge (and Parry and WS Tests and everything else), then the Vindicare wouldn't be nearly as problematic. Do I think he's an 'Instant Win' button? No. But he's as close to 'Instant Win' as you can get without being a pre-errata Astartes Heavy Bolter (but that's a whole 'nother story...).


And yes, I did use the 'roll' vs 'role' analogy, and I know how tired using that can be, but like a lot of us here have seen Morangias, your posts do read like a combat-centric MMO player obsessed with damage and combat efficiency, or in tabletop RPG parlance, a crunch-gaming min-maxer with serious munchkin tendencies. I'm not saying you are that, just that it's the impression that some of have formed from reading recent posts. I'm not even passing judgement on that type of play - if everyone from the players to the GM are all on board the crunch-tastic munchkin train then that can lead to some fun combat-centric games - but I tend not to try to judge the 'worth' or any system or weapon or expansion or whatever on how good it is in combat alone. Moreover I take a very broad view of RPGs - my 'you get out what you put in' line - in that if you label something as being 'X' and refused to see it any other way, then all you're going to get from it is 'X'. When I first saw Black Crusade I couldn't work it out, so much so that I rejected the very concept. If I had started playing it with that viewpoint it is likely that I would still hold that opinion, but I took a step back and let other people take the reins and now I can't wait to get back to playing it.

Nothing in these rules is perfect (well, other than the stuff I write, of course! ) but I don't think there's anything that's really truly broken (other than pre-errata Astartes Bolt Weapons... but, again, a whole different discussion...).

I hope my position is clearer now.

BYE

I tend to share your views of RPGs in general, H.B.M.C., but find that when someone asks for advice and opinion, it's safer to stick to the common ground provided by rules than divulge into the highly subjective field of playstyles, attitudes and personal experiences.

At my gaming table, we're taking a balanced approach and deriving fun from both roleplaying and number crunching. I used to do a lot of freeform many years before, but at some point I've found that relegating some things to dice rolls creates a more interesting, less predictable story, and my players feel the same way. Naturally, since we know we will be rolling for many things, everyone is mindful of the mechanical side of his character just as much as he is of the narrative side - in fact, the whole point of the approach is to make the character sheet naturally enhance the roleplaying by rewarding characters who invest along the theme of their character.

The downside of this is, sometimes ideas get dropped because there's no way to make them work mechanically. Again, it's not about having the very best build ever so much as it is about having a character that keeps to the theme and contributes to the team effort at the same time. All in all, my gripe isn't that the system isn't perfectly balanced to MMO standards, it's that some builds are obviously too good and some are obviously too bad, the accent falling on "too". Most of the times we can see it before we even start and build around it, sometimes we miss something and it blows up in our face. Ascension was, sadly, one of the latter cases, and I still haven't managed to beat it into a truly satisfactory shape.

I think the problem here was a lack of specificity (is that a word? specific-ness?). Or in the immortal words of Cool Hand Luke, 'What we have here, is a failure to communicate'.

If Moringias had said: "An assassin with an average of 30-35 in Agility as a rank 1 n00b takes +20% in 'Core' XP upgrades, takes +20% dodge in 'Core' XP upgrades, takes another 5% to agility when transitioning to the Vindicare, another 10% to Agility in 'Ascension' upgrades, gets a further 10% bonus from his Vindicare Suit, and then takes Unnatural Agility at rank 9, the end result of his Temple Training means he will start with between 10 and 14 'dodge' or 'parry' reactions per round, depending on what his Agility ends up being. With a base (approximate) agility of 35+20+5+10 = 70% plus another +30% to dodge, then it is obviously ridiculous. And the worst part is that it's exactly what a Vindicare is EXPECTED to do. The only way I can see to get around this would be to ambush him with a silenced firearm to ensure he was unaware of the attack and therefore wouldn't get the dodge bonus. And hope that the first shot a) hit and b) did enough damage to put him down. But with an average DR of 8 base or 11-12 with Unnatural Toughness, that would probably require sniping him with an armor-piercing discarding-sabot round from a Leman Russ Vanquisher from 2-3 klicks away. Riiigght.

The unfortunate part was that this is a lot more to write than 'a Vindicare is an I Win button'. Moringias - did you by chance ever threaten your D&D characters with a gazebo? Because the lack of communication I'm seeing here reminds me of this 'incident' I read about once...

Here's the only other thing that bothers me. The description for 'Dodge' as a skill, states that you can only ever dodge a single attack in a round. Then, the Ascension paragon talent Unassailable Grace grants you the ability to dodge a second attack in a round. Yet that talent isn't available to Rank 13. So when I look back at the description for the Temple Assassin feature, I can't help but wonder if the section that reads ' ...the Assassin may attempt to dodge any attack, including attacks that are not normally eligible for a dodge test...' is poorly written, and should actually read 'the Assassin may attempt to dodge attacks that would not normally be eligible for a dodge test, but is still subject to only dodging a single attack per round.' I'm not saying that's how it should be interpreted, I'm just wondering if it was poorly written. Because it certainly makes the Vindicare sound as though he's Neo in slo-mo dodging an entire clip's worth of bullets by windmilling his arms around and going 'woah' as the bullets whiz by.

Further, a misconception of mine has been that Difficulty penalties somehow applied to dodge tests, and degrees of success by the shooter counted as penalties to dodge as well. Now I see that neither of those cases are actually in the rulebook either. So yes, I can see how the Vindicare's matrix-dodge ability can make it pretty **** difficult to play with RAW. I didn't see the combination of Unnatural Agility + Temple Assassin.

(Speaking of combos, I didn't see the Regeneration/Inferno combo either. So there. Mea Culpa. I don't set out to see how badly I can break a game when I learn to play, so I tend to miss those subtle combos. It's also why I hate Magic cards.)

But that brings me to my next point.

The more think about it, it doesn't make any sense that a Vindicare would just tag along with an Inquisitor party to begin with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the fluff I've read indicates that the Grand Master of Assassins and the High Lords of Terra are "supposed" to sanction every Temple Assassin mission (including pg 44 of Ascension). Assassins are supposed to be solo individuals, not part of a team. A Vindicare is the solitary sniper who stalks his target for days before squeezing the trigger. A Callidus spends days, weeks or months infiltrating a target's retinue via polymorphine. An Eversor is supposed to be decanted from a cryostasis tube with hypnotic instructions pumped into his brain as he's quickly taken to his drop-pod before the crystal meth - I mean, Combat Cocktail kicks in and he goes berserk. Lastly, where the first three don't really fit in a team environment, a Culexus Assassin (IMO) would be the ideal assassin to team up with an Inquisitorial band because if it weren't for the whole 'soulless creepy vibe and skull helmet that freaks people out' thing, they would be able to contribute in a meaningful way, especially when hunting down psykers, without totally breaking things wide open.

But going back to Moringias' point, the book needs to be evaluated on RAW, not on fluff and plot and roleplaying and other silly stuff, and the Vindicare example is pretty badly out of line. And the psyker combos that benefit from the anti-fatigue effect of regeneration (Bloodboil, My Will Obeyed, Inferno, Purgatus, Tempest) seems pretty wacky too. So while I accept that RAW can potentially be game-breaking, I really wish you'd been a little more specific in your complaints, instead of making sideways comments and assuming we'd all memorized the books and drawn the same connections you did.

I said in my post "Ascension is not for everyone". If you would allow a Vindicare all his bonuses in Powered armor or to forego his Exitus Rifle in favor of some whiz-bang Eldar artifact, you are allowing him to commit heresy! As to all the rest... A Vindicare is not a D&D rogue nor does he exist in a medieval setting! There is nothing in his basic makeup that makes him Immune to auspex scans, tripping pressure plates/traps or any # of other creative issues. I believe the problem you are having is the same problem many dm's have running epic-level D&D games. You keep saying that the Gm cannot control his group but that is not true! True throne agents are not going to be hunting cults in the underhive. That's what Acolytes are for. Throne agents will be hunting the Originators of grand conspiracies and world shattering events! I humbly submit that no player in my game would be so stupid as to proclaim an "I win" character (As I would own their character sheet within the next session ). If you cannot challenge your player's in ascension or just plain prefer the gritty harshness of DH than stick with it! Oh and BTW: If you cannot see the large scale implications inherent in the influence system than I am not the one who's not reading the rules.

@Orion Pax: didn't I at one point write something to the effect of "Vindicare has 10+ dodges, each of them at about 100%, and stacks them with nigh-undetectable stealth skills and Unnatural Toughness"?

"Vindicare is an 'I win' button" is a thesis, what you're talking about is the proof.

@Radwraith: The whole problem is, if vague plot consequences are the only thing you can do to threaten the team with failure, you're effectively running a superhero game, and Ascension shouldn't be one. Deathwatch is closer to a superhero game in theme and mood, but it still manages to threaten the players with death as well as mission failure, because 40k is supposed to be this gritty world where even fighting demigods who know no fear tend to die. The same cannot be said of either Primaris or Vindicare. Well, I've got several systems better suited for running a superhero game. As in, systems where everyone gets to be the superhero, not just two careers out of several.

The Influence system actually consists of Peer Talents and renamed Peer Talents that stack, plus some vague stuff about spy cells and correspondence networks with no actually helpful rules of adjudicating the effects this has on a world. I could better map my character's political pull with a pencil and a sheet of paper than I can do it spending my precious experience on Influence Talents. In other words, I can do it just as well as I did in DH. But I didn't buy Ascension to have the same tools for running an intrigue that I did in base DH, did I?

If you tell me you needed Ascension to permit you running sector-spanning intrigues at all, I might not take you seriously on future occasions.

Kshatriya said:

I expect a "no" to end an issue but I am happy to explain why, as are most of the GM's I've played with. As a player, if the GM says "no" to an idea I have I say "OK" and move on. I take no offense, nor do I take it personally. The GM doesn't think it's viable therefore it's not. I don't understand why people get their panties in a twist over a GM in a game saying "no" to a player.

Kshatriya said:

I don't and haven't handled overpowered characters this way.

My approach is to set up situations that make those players giddy, while the rest of the party is accomplishing the actual task at hand and everyone is allowed to shine for their skills. War Worlds and hive riots work wonders for these types of situations. Primaris and Vindicares can go nuts covering and protecting the party from the masses or rioters, troops, air strikes, artillery strikes, falling buildings, etc, while the party gets things accomplished. Or the party must cause some ornately difficult accidents to happen to force a target into the sights of the Vindicare who gets one shot at a target. Maybe the Primaris has caused too much trouble and is the target of a massive witch hunt and the party must protect him. All types of things can be done to accommodate and allow for these careers that doesn't call for forcing them out of their element or throwing exceedingly rare things at them again and again.

To repeat/quote myself: Players must understand that while they are free to do as they please, the world they are in has rules and consequences, beyond just the game mechanics.

Your playing in 40K. Fluff has meaning and rules that need to be followed or else you are no longer playing in 40K.

Psykers are hated and feared. If a Primaris starts wrecking everything, everywhere he goes, people will notice. Some people will be able to handle him, it's what they do. I have no issue throwing other Inquisitors and Witch Hunters at a player, even if they are a part of the Inquisition. The actions of a psyker will reflect and impact the party.

Vindicares: The player will understand that they are no longer a normal character, they are a Temple Assassin. They are a tool, no different from a hammer or a pair of tweezers, to be used by the Inquisitor. This is the role they choose and the role they will preform. If they are not happy with that, pick something else to play. Superhuman killing machines wrecking everything will get noticed. The villain will find out that they are around. The villain is smart enough to figure out a counter or twelve to this kind of problem.

I apologize for not quoting all the relevant points in my responses here, but i'll try and be as clear as possible.

In my mind Ascension is one of the weakest expansions for Dark Heresy to date. It was trying to broach entirely new ground (high level intrigue and politicking) but based itself on the same system already in use for Dark Heresy's lower-level play. So immediately you have one rules system trying to do multiple things which rarely ends well. The high-level intrigue that Ascension offered just wasn't covered in enough depth or detail. The GM section at the back needed an entire chapter on how to deal with rival organisations, with some sample tables and examples to show just what sort of inter-play can go on.

Then there has been the absolute lack of support since - Dark Heresy hasn't had an Errata in years. I seriously doubt that releases after the Inquisitors Handbook have been perfect, and it'd be nice to see the level of support that the other 40k RPGs have seen. This suggests to me that FFG weren't too happy with the way Dark Heresy was going with Ascension and why we've seen only Ordos or class specific books since.

To the point of Vindicares being overpowered - they are exceptional marksmen, yes. They should be just about the best in the Emperor-damned universe - they shouldn't be invincible though. However i think a lot of what people say about their seven trillion dodges at +2489656 bonus is largely out of lack of truly getting into the spirit of the system. Dodge stipulates that you must be aware of the threat in order to attempt a dodge. That's fair enough, and the Vindicares entry (off the top of my head) doesn't state that you can now dodge things you are unaware of, merely that you can dodge things that wouldn't normally grant a dodge - such as area effect gases, landmines etc.

As to the auto-pass/fail scenarios in my games and the games i've played in we've adopted a very simple rule that i wouldn't even class as a house rule but merely an expansion of an existing rule - 01 to 05 auto-passes while 96 -00 auto-fails. Not just on combat rolls but on everything. We use this in situations where a character may have a hellish -60 penalty and not be the best at, for arguments sake Tech-use, but might just fluke it and get it right. Conversely even the best of the best slips up occasionally (or better yet, the GM can have those auto-fails be caused by outside influence - in the Tech-use example it could be an irate machine spirit locking the character out). By using this system it equates perfectly to the d20 mechanic of 1's failing and 20's passing all the time as it's the same % chance of occurring.

So, all the ways to handle the Vindicare and Primaris are, distract them with endless hordes of mooks and make sure they can't put their overbloated competence to use when the rest of the team tries to do something?

Well, whatever rocks your boat, but I'd be pretty pissed if I got that treatment all the time.

I've been running a campaign that has resulted in the gaem raching acension. My players have been havign a little trouble grasping the tacics to use in Ascension, but I chalk that up as some growing pains. My Vindicare has absolutely not been a problem for me. True he is a god of snipers, but I don't see him as unbalancing my game. While I don't totally gloss over combat, it has taken a back burner in my game. Sure I use the dice and let my players beat up the bad guys, but I try to spend my time emphasizing the setting and the characters roles in it. Most of my players have a ball when we play. They already know they are bad-ass

Morangias said:

No. This is objectively, inexorable, completly, wrong.

The GM's ability to hack slash change and ignore rules is an intrinsic and implict part of the game and books can only be read in this context.

In terms of gaming a roleplay book is 100% useless without a GM to interpret and use the rules. It is simple as that. As soon as you seperate the rules from the GM then you are not going to get a good game no way no how..

Roleplay does not work on any kind of Rules As Written argument.

(N.B but seriously any GM who can't deal with a 'super power' PC as soon as that rears its ugly head just isn't trying. How about I don't know clone the character and send the evil twin after him. A cheap but viable tactic for any GM.

Also pg 243 Dark Heresy rule book Death by a Single Word 1d10 days for that Vindicare to find a way of reversing the curse or he is dead. Dodge you way out of that one (plus you get the added bonus that the attack is also the plot hook)

Why all the Ascension hate? I say "Why all the hate?" Isn't this all meant to be fun?

Anyway, two things strike me about this thread.

First, it is largely about whether the Vindicare is unbalanced. As a gm I personally wouldn't want one in my game because I'm a terminally 'crunch shy' gm who tends to focus on narrative and dislike the book-keeping. However, that's not my point. Has anyone read the introduction to the Radical's handbook where they 'thaw out' the assassin for a mission? She effectively has no mind left except for remembering that she ''am Moritat". She as gone beyond the realm of PC into NPC. Same for a vindicare, personally whether it is unbalanced or not is irrelevant for me because I just don't think there would be enough personality there to make a good pc. Why did they put it in the book? Some guys and gals like that sort of stuff and that's cool with me.

Second. There is no pleasing everyone. Those poor bloody designers. Haing all us going through their books with a fine tooth comb. No ascension isn't really to my taste, but I'm sure it must be to someone's as we have seen here. Because there is no pleaseing everyone, it is unliikely that anyone will like everything they find in this (or any) book. Again,that is cool with me. It is difficult to expect perfection when you have perhaps ten designers putting a book together and two thousand grognards like us picking it apart. In 25 years I've never seen a perfect RPG and it's too much to expect perfection because there is no such thing as a perfect system, look at when DH came out and the molotov cocktail was nealy the best weapon WTF? or the Psyker rules because everything is based off one stat for them?

Live and let live team, and don't be so ready to be disappointed. There is very little perfection in the world, so don't sweat the little things.

Do we like playing 40K RPGs? Frak yeah we do!

Visitor Q said:

Huh?

By that argument, every rpg rulebook ever written is absolutely Great- because the GM can alter it until it is. Never mind that in some cases that would become a full-time job in and of itself. And there is the question of why am I giving you my money for a rulebook if I'm just going to have to rewrite the rulebook myself...?

I haven't played Ascention yet (my party is currenty 6th level), but I find Morangias' arguments convincing; since my group is committed to playing past 8th level, it looks like I'm going to have some serious tweeking to do- and, yes, that is a deficit to the quality of a rulebook. I think I can jigger most of the unballanced stuff into a viable form- everything except Psychic Powers. Yes, this is a flaw in core DH as well (why the hell did they choose to pattern psychic powers after D&D spells?!), so I can't hold that solely against Ascention , but still... Does anyone have any suggestions on how to alter Psychic Powers to keep the Primaris Psyker from dwarfing the rest of the party into insignifigance? And please don't say "Just use the rules from Black Crusade ." Yes, I've heard that they work much better, but my campaign is too far along to completely swap out the existing system...

ItsUncertainWho said:

I agree that fluff is important. But a group/GM need not be required to become 40k fluff experts to enjoy playing DH. The game must stand on its own merits, separate from the huge body of 40k fluff, simply because groups may want to just play, not become experts on the setting. I agree that many groups will want to become knowledgeable or will want to learn. But for those who don't, the game should help out with crunch that might support fundamental fluff up doesn't require one to go seek it out or do research. A game being relatively self-contained is not an unreasonably high standard.

ItsUncertainWho said:

If all a Vindicare is is a tool for a PC Inquisitor, and if PC Vindicares shouldn't have personalities, goals, rivalries, etc., then Vindicare shouldn't be a PC class at all, because "blank tool lacking all self-determination" is not the role of any PC. The second a class is nothing more than an asset and a plot point rather than a vehicle for exploring a character and telling a story is the second that the class is not suitable as anything but an NPC. Which is exactly how Temple assassins are treated in Deathwatch: an asset for the PCs to spend Requisition on and thus guarantee that a major enemy in the mission is killed without their personal involvement. Cool to invoke but that would be awfully boring to play.

Adeptus-B said:

No, again this is wrong.

A RPG 'rulebook' is more than a collection of rules. It is background and guidance. In fact even calling it a rulebook is misleading. It is a sourcebook (or as FFG prefers a supplement). It is a source if inspiration for the GM. The rules may or may not provide a useful framework for a GM to use in his games.

Every rulebook isnb't great because not all of them provide adequate guidance, inspiration or a framework in which to play. But hell even Nobilis which is probably the cloest you are going to get to a successful unplayable RPG is still worth buying just for the background alone.

Adeptus-B said:

Finally, someone gets it.

As for fixing Ascension, fortunately it's still doable, more or less. Switching to BC base mechanics isn't necessary, but a vastly more elegant solution

But if you really want to stick to DH base, here's the list of suggested houserules.

1. Instead of getting +AB extra reactions, the Temple Assassin training works on the mechanics of a force field (prot 50, ever overloads). The Vindicare loses this benefit if he wears any armor other than his stealth suit or a standard synskin bodyglove.

2. All numerical variables in psychic powers that key off Willpower Bonus use effective Psy Rating instead. Bear in mind that if a Psyker uses a power at Fettered level, he lowers his effective Psy Rating. I also strongly recommend making Fettered/Unfettered/Push rules available to all DH psykers rather than just Primaris (because again, random explosions when manifesting minor powers are dumb).

3. Skill Mastery packages are gone. Instead, whenever a given career lists a Skill Mastery in it's advancement table, treat it as if it listed all Skills normally covered by the Mastery up to a +20 level, as separate advancements. The costing needs some work, 200xp a pop is good baseline but you might want to dabble in it, say, give cheaper Lore skills to the Sage career and such.

4. Paragon Talents are only purchasable once the character has all the normal Talents listed in the package. If it was impossible for the character to gather all the necessary Talents, you can allow him to buy the missing Talents as elite advancements.

5. Crusader characters get an extra Reaction that can only be used to Parry whenever they use a shield. Whenever he suffers a hit while defending his ward, he doubles his Toughness Bonus for reducing damage.

6. Use Blood of Martyrs rules for Pure Faith and related Talents. At the same rank each Career gets the Pure Faith Talent, they can buy any two Faith Talents for 300 exp each. At any subsequent rank, the Career can purchase one additional Faith Talent for the same price. Double the number of available Faith Talents for the Hierophant career. Characters with access to Psychic Powers can't have any Faith Talents, even if they do have them in their career table.

7. Instead of treating his carapace armor as one quality step better, the Storm Trooper gets an extra Armor Point whenever wearing any armor of Imperial manufacture. Instead of adding Tearing quality to his hellgun, he adds the quality to any non-exotic ranged weapon he uses. If the weapon already has Tearing, he adds Proven (3) instead.

There you have it. Two most broken careers get a bit more mellow, other careers get some extra toys. The Influence system is still poor, but fixing it takes more time that I just can't commit at the moment. Expect various problems to rear their ugly heads, but you at least the game shouldn't violently blow up in your face.

Visitor Q said:

Here's the thing.

The moment Rogue Trader (I mean the TT 40k predecessor, not the RPG) came out, roleplaying in the world of 40k became a possibility. Nobody possessed of average mental capacity needs a gamebook to tell them "Hey, you can play a game of pretend in the world of 40k!" because that's obvious - if it exists, it can be roleplayed.

Yet, we're not here discussing how the Magic User class of 1e D&D needs a lot of house rules to represent the fluff of 40k psykers. Instead, we're discussing a system dedicated to running 40k games. Roleplaying in 40k wasn't a thing until it got it's own game, and I'm sure people were playing freeform and various homebrews before. And again, it's not because we needed the fluff of the world compiled in a handy place - else, we'd be playing Lexicanum RPG. No, we're playing DH, RT, DW, BC, because they give us rules. Rules that distinguish this game from all the other games in the market. Rules that provide a framework for everyone's sessions. Rules that are supposed to make the whole game experience more in line with the fluff of the setting.

Ever since DH came out, it was obvious that one can play an Inquisitor and his retinue rather than lowly Acolytes - the idea was right there in the corebook, but the rules of the game didn't really support this style of play. Of all game supplements around, Ascension was a rulebook par excellence. It's sole reason for existing is to provide us with a mechanical context for an already known but poorly supported idea.

Alas, Ascension does a very poor job at providing those rules. That's why I rate it as one of the worst RPG supplements of all time. It doesn't matter that the fluff on Inquisition is alright, or that the equipment chapter is perfectly workable and new adversaries quite engaging - it falls short on it's most important premise.

H.B.M.C. said:

There was also a misunderstanding of what DH was aimed at, a misunderstanding FFG unfortunately also seems to have had and so have created a real level of power creep recently. DH wasn't about playing Eisenhorn and Friends. It is in many ways "Call of Cuthulu/WFRP in SPAACE!" You are not a bunch of awesome dudes laying the smackdown on daemons every other week. No, instead you are just desperately trying to survive the horrors that are thrown at you until either you die, sprout tentacles, go mad, or join the dark side. I f you manage to survive that you might become a valued member of the Inquisition and start to kick some ass (though there are always those that can "SUMMON BIGGER FISH!"). The "introductory" adventure in the back of the book has a final showdown that can very easily lead to a TPK, even if they have worked out what they need to do .

Temple Assassins and Primaris psykers should not have been included as PCs anyway. Not just because the resulting careers are unbalanced, but because they are unsuitable for PCs. The Vindicare should only be on long range hits, and both should be massively powerful. Balancing them to be suitable compared to other careers would undersell their impact. Leave them as background items or possibly stat them up for NPCs, but not PCs.

There's a definite difference between "this game is about powerful characters, deal with it" and "several options in this game are blatantly overpowered, to the point where they shut down entire venues of challenging the team". Vindicare and Primaris are the latter, and this is a clear design mistake.

borithan said:

Not a misunderstanding so much as a disagreement with what it was aimed at.

You paint awesome special characters, read about the exploits of The Emperor and Marine Heros and Inquisitors and whatnot, and then the game expected you to play some ******* loser no one cares about?

As ever, as soon as Call of Cthulhu is invoked, your chances of getting to drive a tank through a hospital fall through the floor.

AluminiumWolf said:

If you wanna play unstoppable mary sues, then deathwatch or rogue trader is the system for you.

In the end, it just seems like what we need is an Ascension Living Errata, preferably a big one, based on various thoughts. If the FFG people would just print an errata out, we could get past all of this "I don't care what you think, or how as a GM you deal with a problem; that's not how the publishers wrote it" line. At that point, it would be official, and "how the writers wrote it."

Here come a rant...

As for me, I can't say I have some of the same problems. I am, sadly, one of those terrible people who look at an RPG system, see where it has striven to balance everything out, and shake my head at the futility of it all. While I can see why they want it balanced (why play certain things, otherwise?), and agree that, on the whole, it SHOULD be fair and level for everyone playing, it falls apart in certain places, pretty much in every game. Somethings just cannot be easily balanced, IMO. In D&D, for instance, they strove to make all of the core classes roughly balanced, because you shouldn't suffer for what you picked, and should be albe to viably play what you want to play, whether it's an elf wizard, a dwarven cleric, an orc barbarian, or a human rogue. My problem is, however, like so many games, once the level goes up, certain classes begin to outstrip others. Should a lvl 16 fighter be as good as a lvl 16 wizard? Yes. Should they REALLY be? No, and no. A high-end wizard can bend the universe to his will, unleash the elements, move mass targets great distances (even to other planes), demolish whole armies, craft/summon minions who are 10 times more powerful than any beatstick can hope to be. How is a high-level fighter really supposed to compete with that? Simple, they aren't. They had their shine time earlier, when they cleaved through things, confident in their durability, while the wizard was out of spells, hoping he didn't get hit, because one hit could splutch that glass cannon. At the higher end, he's going to become a magical artillery piece, though, and the fighter is still going to be an infantryman, or advanced cavalry, at best (if your GM allows him a dragon mount, or something). There's only so much harder he can hit, and only so many bonuses he can stack on with his armor. He might kill 8 schmucks in a turn, but the wizard might kill 30, his reward for being glassy, and making it to his shine time. This is where I feel 4th ed ruined D&D for me, making wizards suck to play, with so many spells ritualized, requiring stuff, space, prep, and more, and now they already need 5th ed, because 4th was sort of lame to many (which is sad, because Star Wars Saga Edition, very similar is great, if LucasArts hadn't cut with Wizards of the Coast).

Obviously, I play the wizard, and I would play the psyker, too, putting up with the social BS that because I am a psyker, but not the Emperor, the only truly stable psyker, I cannot be trusted, and risking that everytime I use the power I am supposed to be using for the whole game, really my one trick, there's a chance something will come out and bloody my nose, or eat me outright. For surviving that all, I get to grow into a true powerhouse, though still one that now even higher-end people are constantly watching, for my own good, of course. Honestly, I don't completely get how some people want that to balance. How should a high-level Guardsman be as good as a high-level Psyker? He might have better armor, more health, but I have all the warp at my call, and don't run out of ammo. I can't auto-fire, so my attacks will have to hit harder. I've been through a kind of harrowing that not even Guardsman K riding down the gullet of Edgar, the Red Terror, only to blast his way out with a plasma pistol, can compete with. In TT, a single psyker is as dangerous, sometimes, as a whole squad of grunts, and that is the source material they are tentatively drawing from. Short of the newer IG Codex, where their Battle Psykers work more like RT Astropaths, and the whole group makes one psy attack, they stand alone, raining doom down upon masses of enemies, or single-pinging the bigger baddies. Short of making the psyker not fun to play (he sucks with weapons, his powers would be nerfed, he's still hated, by every NPC, if not some members of the party, all of which might turn on him if he just accidentally makes a cold chill blow through, like the people on Fenris would notice (yeah, it's a SM world; I couldn't name a frozen human hellhole), it's not easy to make him stand next to the Guardsman, and the Adept, and make him work on level, unless they do a better job of making Psyker a template you add to an already existing character, so that he can have other fallbacks, and also some surprise options. Then, he doesn't need to be an Alpha-level Psyker; he's got other stuff, and it didn't cost him numerous, expensive Elite Advances, just some points at the beginning. It might've just been better to make Psyker a package, like Untouchable, or something you can buy like The Mind's Eye Opens, or The Psyker's Gift. Make it the cheesier, more broken seeming aspect a spendy growth, but with other "regular" stuff to pad it out.

Sadly, I doubt any of this matters. Some people like Ascension, and feel that the spirit of it is good; with some GM attention, a houserule or two, and maybe a borrow from a later system (remember, DH was sort of the beta, I believe), one that did something else better, thanks to hindsight, it can make for a very fun game, where, despite the dark, gritty future being what it is, you can feel like an RPG character, rather than a nameless WoW character, whose actions will never change anything (you and a horde of high-level others didn't topple Arthas; Tyrion defeated the Lich-King, by the power of cut-scene). You can feel like a Rogue Trader does; a person with their destiny in their own hands, whose actions have meaning. Others will forever say that, thanks to bad rules, some dodgy editing, and stuff, that it is a pile, and a terrible book to even own, much less reference. Maybe, just maybe, they will do the still wise, but simpler thing, and give us a Living Errata for Ascension, since I doubt they'll rewrite, and re-release it. Come on, FFG, hear the pleas of your consumers; give us something to save/help this book?

jpomz said:

Well sure, but they didn't come out for a couple of years. And Black Industries turned up its toes and died at one point, so they might never have come out.

Especially if no one whined about having to play a retarded cripple in Dark Heresy! :-)

venkelos said:

If the errata comes out... Ascension will still be on my list of badly written RPG products for needing so much errata, but I will certainly judge the errata'd rules on their merit. Since so far FFG has been quite successful at correcting their mistakes, I assume this will lead me to ranting much less. Fortunately Ascension problems aren't too ingrained in the core mechanics, so I believe the book to be fully reparable.

venkelos said:

At the risk of derailing the thread:

No!

"Linear fighters, quadratic wizards" is a stupid, broken trope that only exists because of skinny nerds' revenge fantasies about the muscular jocks who wedgied them in high school. It does nothing but alienate players who don't fancy playing various spellcasters all the time.

First roleplaying game, D&D, came from a fascination with fantasy novels (and tactical wargaming, but that's beside the point), which in turn came from the fascination with mythology. Both fantasy and various mythologies are chock-full of warriors who wielded no magic, yet accomplished the most epic feats. Beowulf swam from Norway to Denmark and fought horrible sea beasts while at it. Heracles bested titans with his might. Gilgamesh challenged the gods on a regular basis. Conan killed sorcerers and fell beasts with no problem. It was Tulkas, the least magical and most fighty of the Ainur, who bested Morgoth twice.

If the game has no idea on handling fighters like that along with reality-warping wizards, it should either nerf wizards to an appropriate level or ban fighters altogether, rather than presenting players with false choices.

venkelos said:

Enjoy your power trip. Please excuse me while I try to make my games enjoyable for all my players, not just those who choose to play a psyker/wizard/whateveristhewinningcomboofthisgame.

How about we agree that the rules as written do 1) not follow the fluff as well as it should. 2) has broken game mechanics that favour certain careers way too much 3) is playable and enjoyable if you put the work and effort into houseruling the shortcomings and oversights from FFG?

Morangias has alot of valid points, psychers and assasins are way overboard. Psychers can even largely negate their own balancing factor, namely the warp screwing things over. And the rules do not enforce the fluff for assassins in a way they should, being able to use power armor etc. A GM can say no of course, but it's a house rule and although those are great, they should never be neccessary for the major problems that arise in ascension. And at that point everyone is most likely attached to their character and starting over might be a bit late....