In some cases this might be true, and the Astartes' weapons might be bigger, might have bigger clips, be heavier, cumbersome to use, more exotic, have more upgrades and Storm- and Combi-weapons might be commonplace due to the lack of regard to weapon sizes.

That's how I always pictured it, too. Their weapons themselves might be armoured so as to better withstand the stress of close combat, magazines holding a couple more rounds, not to mention additional subsystems built into the frame.

I noticed that a lot of people are kind of "dumbing down" the Space Marines to "stronger and tougher", their armour to "it's thicker, duh" and their guns to "they do more hurt" - yet they completely dismiss the many small advantages built into their bodies and their wargear, from implants whose only use is highly circumstantial to biomonitors, recyclers and drug-feeders in the armour to biogenetic locks and autorepair systems in their bolters.

The Space Marines are the Emperor's scalpel, and although some Chapters have become bastardised by ongoing geneseed decline and the loss of knowledge, their equipment and their very bodies reflect this. If you just want something tougher and deadlier, get a tank regiment from the Imperial Guard.

At the DH level, 1d10+5 pen 4 is capable of one- or two-shotting human enemies

If you're fighting the 10 Wounds unarmed Imperial Civilians from the core rulebook maybe ...

The average damage of a DH bolter is ~9.5, so anything that also has critical levels (like the players do) won't be as impressed .

But of course this may be my as of now rather well-developed dislike for Toughness Bonus and an ever-growing preference for the more lethal/realistic damage model in Inquisitor , so I'm certainly not unbiased anymore.

I'm pretty sure Black Industries/FFG has made caliber distinctions at least in the earlier books

Praise the almighty copypasta.

But the mechanical comparison is on the same level as DH and DW having different stats for genestealer enemies. They're separate game lines not designed to be compatible (unlike FFG's new separate Star Wars lines, which are supposed to be completely compatible). What's challenging for DH is a cakewalk for DW; what's hard for DW is too lethal for DH. Even if they're described as being the same caliber I don't think there's a good way (or good reason) to unify stat blocks between games that are not intended by the developers to mix.

To address the OP, there is frankly no good way to integrate; DH characters will always be skill monkeys that obviate skill-related challenges that might trouble Astartes, and Astartes will obviate combat, if not due to the rules giving them super-stats, then with the RAW for Squad Modes and Cohesion. Either that or certain DH characters in Ascension will obviate the need for any party beyond themselves.

I absolutely agree on the games being separate lines, though I do oppose the notion that it would be impossible to "reconcile" them. Another company - Games Workshop itself - already succeeded in doing so, and the only reason this isn't working here is because someone decided that Space Marines need to be even more powerful - albeit I'm willing to consider this was perceived as a necessary fix for the effects of Toughness Bonus. One more reason to do away with it, I say.

It comes down to a unified system having to be created with the understanding that radical changes may be necessary to reign in the effects of certain core aspects of the rules which simply cease to work elegantly when pushed beyond a certain threshold.

An example of an easy fix would be these changes to starting characteristics and advancement. A somewhat more (but not too) complicated modification would be a different injury mechanic like so . There have been dozens of ideas like that tossed around here, though. Some people love 'em, others disagree on it being a problem in the first place. Matter of preferences - but for a unified system, I feel it would help to lower the gap between the characters.

I was under the impression that BI/FFG's stuff counts as fluff on the same level or lack thereof as GW's, so the different weapon levels are in fact now part of fluff.

That's how I see it (and how it was explained by several people who worked on or with GW), too. Of course, the only thing this means is that we now have multiple versions of the fluff to pick from - and some might prefer the original material to the new ideas of an outsourced studio, especially where (as mentioned above) they even contradict themselves, kind of forcing you to come up with your own solution.

My Deathwatch group still plays with GW's fluff (-> the Deathwatch being owned by the Ordo Xenos rather than being a completely independent entity), too ... as an unintentional benefit, we have thus maintained consistency with the new Codex Inquisition. It comes down to whose universe you'd like to feel part of, with what kind of books you came into the franchise, and plain old taste.

If you're fighting the 10 Wounds unarmed Imperial Civilians from the core rulebook maybe ...

The average damage of a DH bolter is ~9.5, so anything that also has critical levels (like the players do) won't be as impressed .

Average damage of a DH bolter is not 9.5; it's about 12.5. There must be a typo in there somewhere.

Unless you mean after TB3 reduction.

Do people really track crits for mooks though?

"although then some may find it hard to believe that the Inquisition is unable to gain access to similar equipment."

Also, it's my belief that the weapon tables for DH predominately represent items on the open market (generally speaking - this breaks down a bit with the Very Rare/Near Unique stuff, though even that is mass produced on a level we can hardly comprehend). These aren't items special-made for high-level Inquisitorial agents. These are weapons purchasable in gun shops (sometimes very high end gun shops). It's the difference between firearms available to US civilians and some of those issued by the US military - some things are just kept out of civilian hands wherever possible. Acolytes are, for the most part, buying on the open market, not receiving requisition of the highest-quality goods courtesy of their boss. Obviously this would not apply at the Ascension level (though little logic already applies to that ruleset) but I generally agree that baseline Quality increases would have been a better way to handle it. At the same time it seems to me that the fluff for "civilian-level Common Craftsmanship" and "Astartes-level Common Craftsmanship" are very different, even if the mechanics are represented the same way.

I'd like to point something out.

For gameplay purposes it is not important what a weapon does per shot.

It is relevant what it does per combat action , that is, per round.

Bolters are semi-auto weapons, and so their average damage (using an arbitrary and unmodified BS of 50 because it's easiest and not taking the automatic Proven from DoS into account), assuming a target with TB3 and AP 4 or less that does not Dodge, using DW mechanics, is actually 19 (wanna see my math? ).

That is the number that is important.

(For the record, the same figure for a plasma gun using the BC stats on Maximal is 25, and that of a long las with a half-action aim is 11, if my math is right. The mighty overpowered long las! That of a stub auto is also a mighty 11. An autogun is 22. Assuming a TB3 and no armour ).

Though average damage for bolters and plasma guns drops a notch if BC/OW rules are used since the +10 to hit vanishes for semi-auto, while the LL increases and the autogun plummets to 13.75. Anyway I digress. Average amage for a boltgun per attack is quite high.

Really this should be damage per attack rather than successful attack to reveal all the details, but I've spent enough time on this already.

Oh hell here we go.

Assuming a BS of 50, a Half- Action Aim, no modifiers other than rate of fire (standard, semi, full), and a target that doesn't Dodge, BUT INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY OF MISSING, if we have a TB3 AP4 target, in one attack:

A bolter on semi will do on average 11.4 wounds.

An autogun on full auto will do on average 2.25 wounds.

A long las on standard will do on average 7.5 wounds.

These are the numbers that are important, not what a single hit does.

(To do a full comparison you would have to factor in chance of RF [though clearly it's higher for the autogun than for the long las, and highest for the bolter] and the possibiity of Dodge, but that gets too complicated.)

EDIT: for the record, a lasgun will do 1.8 on standard, 3 on overcharge, and 6.6 on overload, and a stub revolver (single shot, natch) will do 1.05.

Average damage of a DH bolter is not 9.5; it's about 12.5. There must be a typo in there somewhere.

There is - it should have been 10.5 (5.5+5).

You're probably adding Righteous Fury, but I'm discounting it on the basis of it being too unreliable as it requires you to "confirm" the shot.

Do people really track crits for mooks though?

Probably not, or not most people, anyways. Still, when I look at the weapons I am not making a distinction between "mooks", "players" and "bosses" - I look at their overall damage potential in a way that reflects that, actually, these guns would work the very same way on everyone, because reality does not has such Hollywood-like differences between character types.

Wouldn't this be part of a unified ruleset? Why would the same Chaos cultist that gets instakilled as an NPC suddenly be tougher to kill just because it's now a player character?

Personal preference, though. I'm not much of a fan of "plot armour" and the players being special (in a way that transcends their backgrounds and skillsets), but would much rather see the entire world come together like pieces of a puzzle.

Also, it's my belief that the weapon tables for DH predominately represent items on the open market (generally speaking - this breaks down a bit with the Very Rare/Near Unique stuff, though even that is mass produced on a level we can hardly comprehend). These aren't items special-made for high-level Inquisitorial agents.

Well, even at Ascension level you have the Ordo Malleus version of the Psycannon deal 2d10+5 damage compared to the Marines' 2d10+ 15 .

But ever since the Dark Heresy rulebook labeled anything but Space Marine guns as "civilian weapons", I have adopted a very snarky approach to the whole controversy, as you can probably see. I have no idea who wrote that line, but that is not "my" 40k at all.

Of course, on the other end of the spectrum we now have Arbites shotguns that are more effective than bolters. Or DH bolt weapons that shoot "Astertes rounds" which still only do 2d10 damage. Or Inferno Pistols which have three different damage profiles depending on whether you look at Dark Heresy (which ironically has the lowest), Black Crusade or Only War.

It's not only contrary to the original material and contrary to mixed groups, it is also inconsistent. All of this needs to be addressed for a unified ruleset that does not cater to the one specific group that is the centrepiece of its theme.

(wanna see my math? ).

Not as long as you're again creating a scenario with conditions preset to (ostensibly) favour your argument.

I could do the same, discarding Righteous Fury and giving the shooter a much more common BS of ~40 rather than something close to the human maximum, which would invariably affect how many rounds would hit per attack, and thus the overall damage.

But rather than wasting time on that, I instead suggest that it is important to discuss single shots because apart from semi- or autofire attacks depending on the user's Ballistic Skill, there is also the fact that we might be discussing bolt pistols rather than boltguns. Also, if you are basing your argument on stuff like semi-auto salvos or maxima setting, I wonder what kind of damage the +1 Astartes version using these settings would do - but I doubt the inflated gap would change.

[edit] Wait, was your "12.5" not based on Righteous Fury but rather Mighty Shot?

Okay, that doesn't really matter - we'd then just have to calculate with Astartes bolters firing rounds with 1d10+11 damage.

Well I'll be damned, I didn't discuss Righteous Fury, but if you want here are the stats for BS 40.

Boltgun(semi) 8.55

Autogun (full) 1.5

Long las (standard) 6.15

Hey look no real difference. BTW in about 50% of successful attacks a boltgun will, in fact, kill a TB3 AP4 person (bringing him to a -9 Crit actually), whereas the other half will leave him at about 0 wounds.

PS there is a difference between "contrived scenario" (= a BS 10 higher than 40? as if this would make a difference? really?) and "evidence that contradicts my position" ... the set of the latter encompassing just about everything really.

Anyway, the point is that it is ridiculous to assess the deamage potential for game purposes of a weapon that can fire semi-auto as if it were always firing single shot, because when you are balancing its killing potential against other weapons what is important is damage output per turn, not per hit. If you have a weapon that will have a kill 90% of the time against a person with one hit, it will kill a great many other, tougher things with multiple hits, in the same amount of time, including just about every PC. That is the balance issue, not "it doesn't feel right that bolters can't kill a person with one shot."* Change that if you want, but it will have repercussions -- such as having the ability to obliterate pretty much every PC, ensuring that the archetypal Imperial weapon almost never shows up in games.

* a bolter fired semi-auto at BS40 at a TB3 AP4 target will miss half the time, do an average of 9.5 damage 20% of the time, 19 damage 20% of the time, and 28.5 damage 10% of the time; other words it will kill him about 60% of the times that it does hit and leave him at about 0 wounds the other 40%. If you give him Dodge (of 30%) this becomes about 40%/60% as Dodge cancels out hits on the attack (30% for 1, 20% for 2, 10% for 3). Look, the Power of Math!

"reality does not has such Hollywood-like differences between character types."

I don't get the point of this statement. The game is not reality. The game is a game which, presumably, features PCs as heroic figures (whether traditionally "good" or "bad"). One doesn't (typically) track mook crits for the same reason that one lumps mooks together as Hordes in DW - streamlining the slow and clunky combat system so things move more quickly, with less bookkeeping for entities that really don't matter in the end. One DOES track that stuff for PCs (and important NPCs) because they're the ones the game is actually focused on. And like it or not, it just isn't fun to slog through nameless NPCs who are ded 'ard, nor is it fun for PCs to be building new characters after every 4 fights.

"Why would the same Chaos cultist that gets instakilled as an NPC suddenly be tougher to kill just because it's now a player character?"

Is this a serious question? I can't help but think it's not. I hope you can see why I think it can't be meant seriously.

EDIT: just read that you're not in favor of plot armor. I'm not in favor of it per se, but I am greatly in favor of making the players important, even if they're scrubs, and that includes not cutting corners with their "lives" like I would with a nameless adversary NPC mook.

I think a lot of the stat block inconsistencies deal with just differences in the game systems since they were not created in a unified manner (unlike Star Wars). DH is clearly the most primitive engine, and FFG's authors decided not to scrap the weak (or OP) stuff with errata early on. Games from RT on have characters start with a baseline of more Wounds and greater Characteristics, which I think lead to the belief that weapon damage needed to scale. DW started on the premise of DH-esque "Astarte" weapons and had to alter that in errata when they saw how stupid strong 2d10 weapons were (and even then, didn't permit for backwards compatibility in that errata which causes a host more issues). Just makes me think the 40k lines were not developed or managed together near as well as Star Wars is shaping up to be, because they didn't start from a premise of overall unification or an NWOD-like basic character creation summary on which additional template rules are applied based on whether you're playing Vampire or Mummy or Werewolf etc.

PS there is a difference between "contrived scenario" (= a BS 10 higher than 40? as if this would make a difference? really?) and "evidence that contradicts my position" ... the set of the latter encompassing just about everything really.

I just find the nature with which you conduct these arguments counterproductive in that I think you have a tendency towards relying on various special conditions to bring your point across - be them the dependency on Righteous Fury as an argument that excessive TB is "a non-issue", or the assumption that weapons would just be fired on their highest power level most of the time in spite of the associated drawbacks, or that everyone has some specific talent.

Stuff like that automatically makes me skeptical to what you are trying to say, regardless of whether I actually ought to be.

But yes, I suppose a difference of 10 BS is, in this particular case, not too important, as the bolter only fires three rounds in semi-auto anyways. That was the skepticism again, with me hesitating at the idea of BS 50 now apparently being considered the norm, even before I calculated how much that would actually change anything.

That being said, I still can't quite follow your numbers. Perhaps I've made a mistake somewhere.

Percentage /// average damage -3 TB

Dice Roll 10: Civilian 22.5, Astartes 34.5

Dice Roll 20: Civilian 22.5, Astartes 34.5

Dice Roll 30: Civilian 15, Astartes 23

Dice Roll 40: Civilian 15, Astartes 23

Dice Roll 50: Civilian 7.5, Astartes 11.5

Dice Roll 60: Civilian 7.5, Astartes 11.5

Dice Roll 70: Civilian -, Astartes -

Dice Roll 80: Civilian -, Astartes -

Dice Roll 90: Civilian -, Astartes -

Dice Roll 100: Civilian -, Astartes -

~ average damage in any attack: 9 for civilian bolters, 13.8 for the Astartes version

~ average damage in successful attacks: 15 for civilian bolters, 23 for the Astartes version

To get back to the real issue at hand, I actually do agree with you that balancing is more important than bolters killing with one shot (which I've actually never suggested - you of all people should be aware of my proposal regarding the implementation of the Inquisitor damage model) .. but don't you see that you might have a bit of a problem in terms of balancing when you compare the above numbers, and consider that the increased resilience that stems from the combination of Wounds, Armour and Toughness in the current RAW makes damage values more important the higher you go?

Even just the max damage gap of 17% (including Pen - against unarmoured targets it's a whopping 21%) between a successful Civilian and a successful Marine bolter salvo can mean the difference between causing just only three Wounds, or causing fifteen Wounds - to a creature which may have only 20. In such a situation, this makes the Space Marine character worth 5 normal bolter-toting humans. Or, of course, it could result in the Space Marine causing twelve Wounds, and the human falling short of getting through the target's armour + TB at all.

In my opinion, such details do constitute a problem for mixed parties ... and as such, a potential unified ruleset.

I can see why you prefer a different playstyle, and I certainly agree that it seems to be popular, but I just seem to tick differently when it comes to that. I think I prefer it if the laws of a world's physics (including injuries) apply to the player characters just as they apply to everyone else. The PCs' bodies are not made of different stuff, and to me it just feels odd and kind of immersion-breaking if you just hack and slay your way through a Horde of enemies (capitalisation intended) because part of my brain just can't forget that the game would totally work differently if my character would be one of the enemies. Maybe that's my little quirk - that I have ... difficulty shutting this out of my perception. It's why I groan silently when action movies get too ridiculously over the top.

The player characters ought to be special. Yes. But this should not be a result of them just working under completely different conditions, but rather a reflection of their unique skillset, their elite training, their non-standard equipment, or simply their wits and cleverness, and the ability to work as a team. The edge that players should have over mooks could be superior physique and intelligence, or even just plain dumb luck (Fate to avoid death) ... but (imho) it should not be the difference between instadeath and a simple injury as a standard rule.

Or, in other words, I'd prefer if the characters have to fit into the world, not the world fitting around the characters. To me, it makes things feel more consistent and more real/immersive.

I realise this is just nitpicking, for injuries can be a fairly serious deal, and Criticals won't allow you to survive much longer in a fight - but is it really weird that I'd rather see the PCs only having a couple Wounds more? It could simply be a matter of perception ... that there are entire aspects of the ruleset (like the Critical system) that only apply to special people, but not everyone. Either way, it makes me feel uncertain about this.

That's fine with me, I just shudder to think at how much time would be wasted every round if the individual creatures in Hordes would have to be rolled/wound-tracked individually. What a nightmare. I mean a lot of this is just design choices to keep combat moving fast. It still does not, but it could be much worse. What you seem to be advocating is more like how hordes (little h) of enemies are dealt with in the war-game (i.e. very big squads are not treated very different from the units inside those squads, each has separate Wounds and shoots separately etc) or video games…that just wouldn't translate well to an RPG while keeping the cinematic size but not adding a lot of clunk, I don't think.

Indeed, my preferences aren't really suitable for when you'd want to insert large groups of hostiles into the game as anything but a background thing, at best combining a narrative approach with an environmental hazard.

That being said, I guess it depends on how it's done exactly... I can scale down my expectations much like I can adapt to the general abstraction inherent to just about any game. In fact, I really like the general idea behind Hordes, I just think it is pulled off a bit awkwardly because of the huge gap in perceived survivability between a Horde and a normal group of people.

I've cooked up my own rules for small groups of enemies which I believe are at least somewhat more faithful to what the members of a horde should represent, but that was just a mental exercise for potential alternatives - as well as a possible homeruled feature for NPC companions for player characters. I haven't really tested it at all so far, and it is only meant for groups of 2-5 people, not "real" hordes (although it does support individual members carrying special weapons).

That being said, from what I've gathered in DW so far, very large Hordes are rather boring in that you just keep clubbing onto that single anonymous faceless entity until it doesn't hurt you anymore. Oh well - at least it's a challenge for the GM and the players to spice up a bland mechanic with their descriptive skills.

All of the above is also just a slight preference - it doesn't actually "ruin" the game for me. There are things I am way more critical about .. the lack of Crits on mooks as well as Hordes are really just nitpicking.

Yeah, Hordes are not exactly fun to run as a GM either. At least not when the best way to deal with them is "take cover and hammer at them til they stop moving." I've been trying to come up with scenarios where that just doesn't work, for one reason or another.

Why this again some asked? Perhaps because a GM got a player who either don't want to play a marine because they would rather play a DH/RT char, or it's a woman that don't want to play a marine. It was quite obvious by the OP.

Civilian vs Astartes bolter: Others or myself surely said this, but craftsmanship is not just about having a more robust gun, bigger magazine or full auto fire; ammunition plays a factor. Perhaps the powder is more refine, the fuel is less diluted, the metal tip is 99.9% pure instead of 90-95%, the explosive compound that made the bolt explode after penetration is of a more potent composition..See the 45-70; sure it's a black powder round, but you can load some with smokeless, just low pressure, because it's **** well more powerful than black powder.

PCs are special because they are the PCs; That heretic in the horde in front is a mook, the leader of the pack behind the horde is the special cultist that's on the same flooring as the PCs. How come we all remember the James Bond villain/henchmen but none of the minion? Because the villain/henchmen is in his class of his own on top like bond is, while the minion is just the hired help used to move stuff around and gets into gunfights with the Army when they storm their base.

And...wasn't Horde a loose value? Like a Str30 horde can be 30 guys with lead pipes or just a dozen storm troopers- What I mean is it depends on the individual forming the horde rather than "bunch of guys there, hence a horde"

PS there is a difference between "contrived scenario" (= a BS 10 higher than 40? as if this would make a difference? really?) and "evidence that contradicts my position" ... the set of the latter encompassing just about everything really.

I just find the nature with which you conduct these arguments counterproductive in that I think you have a tendency towards relying on various special conditions to bring your point across - be them the dependency on Righteous Fury as an argument that excessive TB is "a non-issue", or the assumption that weapons would just be fired on their highest power level most of the time in spite of the associated drawbacks, or that everyone has some specific talent.

Stuff like that automatically makes me skeptical to what you are trying to say, regardless of whether I actually ought to be.

But yes, I suppose a difference of 10 BS is, in this particular case, not too important, as the bolter only fires three rounds in semi-auto anyways. That was the skepticism again, with me hesitating at the idea of BS 50 now apparently being considered the norm, even before I calculated how much that would actually change anything.

You have gotten me wrong. I chose 50 BS because the number is "50," and hence easy to work with intuitively.

I did not contrive something. I used the most recent published stats, set them up next to each other, started them shooting and rolled the dice to see what happens. What happens is that the Sisters kill the Astartes in about 4 rounds. BTW Righteous Fury did not play a roll in this. If they had not had Mighty Shot (which they do in their write-up), it would have taken about 6 rounds, I think. Faster if they bother to use their Fate Points.

The point in Righteous Fury is that it is an integral part of the game system and is precisely why massed firepower will take down just about any target that is not a vehicle (in BC/OW, where NPCs have it). Because massed = lots of rolls = lots of 10s = lots of damage. It's also BTW why 3-4 Dark Eldar Warriors will kill an Astartes in not very much time, because each RF = 1 wound = 1 Toxic Test (at -40 if BC rules are being used; I think it's worse in OW though).

Of course Guardsmen are going to use the max setting against Astartes; they're not idiots. That's what the setting is for; shooting big armored things. (Although they actually do not have to use it, although it will help them out by increasing Crits, which will likely knock the target unconscious before he dies).

I consider Toughness to be a non-issue entirely, as I do supposed discrepancies between human and Astartes weapons, and so I am not going there. I have no problem with Astartes wading through lots of lasgun or autogun fire or significant "human" bolter fire.

BTW let's stop calling them "civilian" bolters; that's old terminology and doesn't mean what it says. They're human-sized bolters. not civilian ones.

(A human bolter, assuming the Astartes is wearing armour with a 10 AP chestplate, will do an average of about 1 Wound a hit with RF factored in [slightly less actiually], meaning it takes about 30 to kill him, which 4 people with BSs of 40 will manage in about 30 seconds of game time discounting Critical Effects, which will accelerate things; in fact if he survives he will likely die of Blood Loss shortly thereafter. In other words, indiividuals or small groups armed with them are not a great threat, but large numbers of them are. Which is as it should be.)

I consider Toughness to be a non-issue entirely, as I do supposed discrepancies between human and Astartes weapons, and so I am not going there. I have no problem with Astartes wading through lots of lasgun or autogun fire or significant "human" bolter fire.

Fair enough, that's a matter of personal preferences and which version of the fluff you prefer.

It only starts to become a potential issue once you're trying to build a roleplaying game around this idea.

BTW let's stop calling them "civilian" bolters; that's old terminology and doesn't mean what it says. They're human-sized bolters. not civilian ones.

Nah, it's an apt description befitting the considerable (~25%) difference in damage. Just like "human-sized" Terminator armour has less protective value (because apparently a suit that carries itself cannot be loaded with plating of equal thickness), or "human-sized" flamethrowers and plasma guns somehow burn a couple degrees colder than the mighty Astartes gear.

I'll reserve the right to maintain this cynicism. The game has come up with the term itself, and it fits to the pitiful effect it has in comparison. That somebody, at some point, thought this would be a good way to describe the wargear used by the Inquisition and the Imperial Guard says a lot about what was going through people's heads when making the game.

Ironically, though, this was actually Black Industries' doing rather than FFGs - yet there, the difference between "civilian" and Astartes gear was considerably smaller!

To make the games interact properly the GM (and to an extent the PCs) really has to think about what kind of game/campaign he wants to play.

I think it would be a mistake for the GM to say 'right, this is an Only War game but Bob is playing a Rogue Trader' or 'this is a Dark Heresy Game but Jim is playing a Flesh Tearer Marine'.

Instead the GM should have a basic idea of the kind of campaign he wants to play, then ask the PCs to roll up their characters and then seeing the group he has to work with flesh out and add to the campaign he is creating. That way the GM can balance the scenarios in the game to make sure every player has their time in the lime light and no player is overpowered or overshadowed.

Also the PCs should be under no illusions that there will be times when their character is the third wheel of the group, whether it a Marine at the ambassadors reception or the Adept genuis taking cover during a fire fight with Night Lords. This should not be seen as necessarily a bad thing. After all there as many role playing opportunities for how to act in an akward situation as to how to act in a situation you are competant in. Indeed some of the best role play sessions I have GM'd have been when the PCs have been totally out of their depths either socially or in combat.

It is about balance though if three of your PCs are Marines and two of your PCs are street smart scum characters (odd pair up but technically possible) then at least 2/5ths of the play time should be focused on what the scum characters are adding to the group. If this is too difficult I would suggest rolling up two characters for every player and then allowing them to mix and match them as the scenario depends.

I am always amazed that these interaction type threads focus on PCs joining groups of marines and being considered the weakest. In my experience there are numerous different ways of winning a fight but generally it is the interaction and investigation skills that the group lacks to complete the mission.

Good input.

My comments should be regarded as being focused entirely on combat as this game (Deathwatch) is heavily combat-centric, and because bogi_khaosa's example is centered on another combat-heavy character with a lifestyle not unlike the Marines, and the exact same deficiencies when it comes to investigation or social interaction with anyone outside their circles.

I did hear about successful cross-game campaigns where the non-Marine player simply chose a character class focused on the investigation and interaction you mentioned - in essence, the party splitting up into combat and non-combat specialists, and the GM catering to both. This could probably be compared to the Scribe's role in Dark Heresy in relation to the Guardsman.

Though I still wouldn't see what is supposedly wrong about simply giving, say, an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor a Marine-level bolt pistol just so he's not nigh-useless in combat. It's not as if the Space Marines would not still dominate the scene, as they probably should in such a setup.

That said, I suppose everyone just draws their line differently as to how much a character is "allowed" to perform in an area that's not their prime field of expertise. Ideally, as much fun as Marine players have in an awkward social situation, as much fun should be afforded to a non-Marine player in combat alongside them.

To me having a bunch of Astartes and one, let's say Ascended DH social Career, or sufficiently experienced RT Career, creates one major problem. Sometimes the challenge for Astartes is not combat, but in forcing them to act diplomatically, negotiate, solve puzzles, etc. Stuff that is outside their comfort zone and generally outside of their training - stuff that most Chapters don't get stuff for on their Chapter table and that is on the General SM Table above Rank 2.

Add in a DH skill monkey and that challenge is gone as the skill monkey handles it with their 4 Fel advances and Charm +20. That's a situation I want to avoid even more than the skill monkey being dominated in combat.

Yeah, many Inquisitor's least skill is combat, but their Influence, connections, and skills at social interaction and observation make Space Marines look like Stephen Hawking's computer talking to someone who doesn't speak the language. Not that many people a Space Marine might speak to wouldn't just bow down and give, but Inquisitors do that AND are good at it. They just can't take the hits, with less health, lower Toughness, and shite Power Armor (I like Ignatius pattern PA, but with no Black Carapace, it's not a lot more armor, and it is a lot easier to hit them.

Imperial institutions flat-out bowing down and doing whatever the Deathwatch wants is also boring. it can happen sometimes but not frequently. I prefer the interpretation where high-ranking mortal personnel respect the Astartes but are not overawed by them, and willingness to help is more of a negotiation than a "gimme." Even with Inquisitors. If Inquisitor X says "gimme," an IG Lord-Commander might just have his old buddy Inquisitor Y intervene on his behalf.

Agreed, and while I sometimes dislike that the Space Marines basically get to act with no supervision beyond themselves, so long as I can establish that Force Commander A can no more boss a "mortal" Inquisitor Lord B around, and expect to get results, then B telling A what to do, I accept that. For other agencies, I don't actually imagine too many individuals willingly defying an Inquisitor's commands, as he "speaks for the Emperor", unless said Lord-Commander has something to hide, but with the true power of the Inquisition really being more of a tug o' war of influence, I'm accepting that the CAN, and of course, as stated, they might know another Inquisitor who they can get to intercede on their behalf. Even most Inquisitors TRY to be nice, or suave, before they pull the =][= and the plasma pistol, and get what they want, one way or another. I'm of the opinion, though, that much like a Commissar with a bad Officer, said Inquisitor really can just cap that Commander, and answer to nobody but another Inquisitor, or any mob that now wants a say.

Imperial institutions flat-out bowing down and doing whatever the Deathwatch wants is also boring. it can happen sometimes but not frequently. I prefer the interpretation where high-ranking mortal personnel respect the Astartes but are not overawed by them, and willingness to help is more of a negotiation than a "gimme." Even with Inquisitors. If Inquisitor X says "gimme," an IG Lord-Commander might just have his old buddy Inquisitor Y intervene on his behalf.

Often it is the items the Marines want. Pretty much anyone in the Imperium would provide basic things like food lodgings and ammo to a Marine if they had the relevant supplies available (things like ammo might not be practical). But larger items like star ships or divisions of tanks are generally supervised, ultimately, by figures as influencial as individual Astartes. In some cases even Inquisitors will have trouble requisitioning items even without getting other Inquisitors invovled.

Take this example. Astartes led by an Inquisitor want to commandeer a Large Merchant Class Hauler owned by a Noble Family which is in orbit around a planet. They want to take it to the other side of the sub sector. The noble Merchant Captain is pretty savy and influencial. He doesn't want to lose money or time going off on what is to him a fools errand on the other hand saying no to a group of Marines and an Inquisitor is not good for one's future career prospects to say the least. Solution. He blames his Navigator. 'Of course he wants to aid the Holy Ordos' he would say 'The problem is that the treaty with the Navigator House doesn't stipulate taking the ship to that area of space. You will have to take the matter up with the Navigator.' 'Where is the Navigator? Well at the momet he is on the planet surface taking care of his clans business there. He should be done in a few weeks.' The ship can't fly without its Navigator and so the Merchant is able to fob the Inquisitor off without doing anything too heretical.

Of course in game terms this is why Renown and Influence exist.

Yeah maybe, it's a shame that the Influence system from Ascension is god-awful.

Yeah maybe, it's a shame that the Influence system from Ascension is god-awful.

Oh come on, no it's... can't finish that sentence. I still think I like Ascension, but yeah, it was a bit goofy in spots. I like Rogue Trader's system more, though they can still be denied, and sometimes I like to think of most of the Imperium saying "No, we CAN'T say no to an Inquisitor!"

I just had a buddy join the DW game I am running as a normal human DH Ascension character.　I believe he took the Storm Trooper path. Anyways, it is painfully clear that he is much, much squishier than the Astartes, even still he prefers to go no helm or arm armor for RP purposes. He knows his place will be removed from the forefront of battle.

But it is also obvious how much more equipped he will be at being the conduit through which the Kill Team can and will interact with "normal" humans. His skills are much more developed and suited toward missions that arent entirely Combat-oriented and I think Deathwatch needs that.

So, I will let you know how it goes.

I still have no idea how I am going to award him XP; I have decided to use renown the same way it is used in DW. The higher his renown score, the more access he will have to uncommon, rare, unique etc. etc. weapons from the DH ruleset. I have also beefed up the static damage on his las carbine and hand cannon. Granted, still they are not the match of a standard Bolter, but at least he wont be dishing out nothing.

If he's a Stormtrooper, his starting equipment makes sense to be better. Hellgun, bolt pistol, etc.