I wanted to share something with all of you that maybe I could gain some words of advice on. I've come up with the conclusion that making the Hatred Talent to specific groups in Black Crusades sometimes misses the mark on game play. Say specifically that I make a Chaos Space Marine with a hatred talent to Astartes and some how never encounter an Astartes would this talent be wasted and not worth what the potential for generalizing the Hatred Talent could be. If I made a custom house rule to generalize the Hatred to all things would I be able to apply it to any thing that my character has the feelings of hatred towards. So I could effectively use it against anything and recieve a +10 to tests. This works well for the Apostate who has Air of Authority and Inspire Wrath as well as the game mechanics seem to invest his hatred upon others.

That's a flaw in the GM, rather than the talent, in my opinion. The GM should either take into account the skills and talents that his players have given their characters, and tweak the game accordingly, or should tell the player "We're not going to be going up against any Space Marines in this campaign, it might be worth picking a different talent". The talent would be way too good if it's generalised for everything, as that'd be an almost constant +10 to hit, which is the equivilent of thousands in XP to increase both WS and BS.

That's a flaw in the GM, rather than the talent, in my opinion.

Or alternatively a flaw of the group. After all, if one of the characters truly hates the Astartes, why doesn't he convince the others to attack some of their assets during the next Compact the group engages in?

Cifer said:

Fair point. Either way, not a fault of the game rules.

Also I seem to remeber some thing in the khorne stuff in the main book (gifts I think) that gives hatred (everything). Trivializing that by making the basic hatred talent do that is something I would be careful about.

Or what about the idea that the character is getting the Hatred (Loyalist Astartes) Talent because he just really dislikes them? Does it matter if he doesn't encounter them as long as you then roleplay the character's vicious dislike of them? Too often people trade up good roleplaying advances because they're unlikely to give a mechanical benefit. Don't be that guy.

AlphariusOmegon7 said:

I couldn't put it better, really - picking stuff because it fits the character should come before how mechanically useful it is, in my opinion anyway.

Right, cater the story or plot to center around some elements of the characters. Agreeable. So in any event there can be worth reasons to have a individual or group hatred talent for certain elements that maybe included in the game to gain use out of it. Thank you.

My current character has both Hatred (Adeptus Arbites) and Peer (Adeptus Arbites). I took both knowing full well that I may never use either. The rules are there to help us convey a character or the concept of a character first and foremost. Especially when it comes to Hatred, Enemy, Peer, Good Reputation or Rival, do not take them expecting them to warp the reality around your character and make them appear.

That said, I do hope myself that I get to deceive and murder myself some Arbites…

Sure I can see where your coming from. As a GM maybe throwing a chance encounter with an Arbitrator who is investigating you would keep the talent playable. I just dislike seeing the various sub groups and not making them playable. If I have an Apostate who has hatred orks I much rather make the sub group a little more vague such as hatred xeno to justify more use of the talent with more than just one brand of alien. I can see from the side of making a character who does have the specific nueances such as hatred arbites just for the sole purpose of making it part of the characters background to.

I'm always a bit suspicious of the argument that players should choose their Talents and the like on the basis of what fits their character rather than what gives them game mechanical bonuses because funnily enough, it only ever seems to work one way.

Nobody ever says that - for example - because character sheets are supposed to reflect the character, that players should be able to give their characters whatever Skills, Talents and Abilities they want.

Why should a player have to pay points (from a pool of points which is arbitrarily limited, specifically for reasons of game mechanical effectiveness) merely to have a particular kind of personality?

They don't pay points for a particular kind of personality. They pay points to get a bonus on an attack roll. Whether or not this actually reflects the character's personality is irrelevant, though ideally that hatred should already exist in the character or at least exist after the player purchases that talent for his character. It is also entirely possible to RP a hatred that isn't represented in crunch. That is as simple as writing it into the narrative.

Oh absolutely, but in that case you should only take Hatred if you actually expect to be fighting your Hated enemy, and deciding not to buy the Hatred talent for an enemy you in-character Hate is perfectly sensible.

I wasn't complaining that Hatred costs points, I was arguing against the idea that it is somehow laudable to spend points to get +10 to hit an enemy you *never actually expect to encounter* merely because it "fits your character."