My oppinion differs a little.

A good game needs to be balanced and have interesting mechanics.

But it also has to be adapted to the fluff well.

This is especially important as this is a WH40k RPG.

The main reason I play this, is because it is inside the wh40k world and modelled to fit it.

NO GUYS ITS IMPORTANT I TALK ABOUT **** CONSTANTLY.

High quality forum, you certainly changed my mind!

EDIT: Fgdsfg I was talking about you, when someone asks you not to use the word **** you stop using the word ****. You're a disturbed individual, please dont like my posts that are actively mocking you.

It's great that you've decided to be as offensive as possible, but it's a shame you won't show us (or just me) what you really think on the matter. If I understand that you do critique feminism professionally I can definitely see why you wouldn't want your real name tied to the reprehensible things you've posted here.

This one sentence I think illustrates the fundamental root of our disagreement on a lot of topics. In my view, the mechanics of a game exist to establish the framework used to play it. Games are built to be played, not to model some fantasy reality, and because of that, rules that make play fair, balanced, and fun should take precedence over minutiae of their setting.

To each their own, so don't pretend that your approach is the One True Way and that people who disagree are incorrect.

While there is merit in doing what you suggest, which a few roleplaying systems very much do, it is not suitable for a pre-existing setting, with well-established tropes and conventions. When people want to play WH40kRP, I believe that they usually do so because they want to play in the WH40k universe, or their perception (preconception?) of what it constitutes.

Forcing the idea of "balance" is in itself inimmersive, because there is no inherent balance to be preserved or true egalitarianism within the setting or in real life. The players, at best, needs to be mildly balanced against eachother to facilitate cooperation or deal with frustrations that may crop up in any group venture; but the players against the setting or the world setting against them?

Not in the least. Some people are going to be intrinsically better or worse than them, just like in real life, and some weapons or gear are going to be intrinsically better or worse than other objects in the universe, regardless of their shared scarcity or abundance.

Balance for the sake of balance, or the gameist rather than the narrative ideal, will always result in compromises with the setting. And this isn't really that open of a setting; every new piece will be picked apart and argued over by possibly thousands of fans, and changing long-standing parts of canon will be understandably controversial.

Like I said earlier, lots of things are really debatable. Some things in the WH40k universe is left completely wide open. There's enormous swaths of the void left open for exploration, and majestic empires built within the Imperium itself, sectors and sub-sectors, and honestly you could probably sell me on the idea of blue-skinned abhumans that dress in all white, or this new piece of technology that makes beans grow like hive spires.

But whether las-weaponry is reliable or not.. it's just not debatable.

Ultimately, it comes down to what you want out of a game. Like you say, games exist to be played. But what constitutes "playing" in this case, as a roleplaying game, is naturally ambigious. When I play a roleplaying game, I want to play a role within a setting as part of a campaign or scenario, and the rules are there to reflect me, my character, and the universe around me, in order to facilitate my immersion.

To me, that's the objective, that's the "fun" of playing a roleplaying game. The most important "framework" that encapsulates the game, to return to your own argument on the topic, is the setting. The setting is the peel of an orange, the rules are all the carpels, and the infertile seeds inside is Matt Ward. And the mesocarp is Robin Cruddace.

I'm sure I was going somewhere with this analogy.

Oh, and the hand that holds it (the Imperium orange) is the hand of the gracious Emperor Gamemaster.

Weapon quality is fine. I did say "like-weapons", which best quality vs worst most certainly is not, so your point is moot. Anyway...

The Sniper Rifle has also gained Reliable, which is an odd comparison to the Long-las not having it.

I figure it's for balance reasons, and I can live with that, but I do agree that Las weapons, in general, should be more reliable than weapons with moving parts.

This is an example of 'Makes Sense' game design. It Makes Sense that a weapon with few or no moving parts would be Reliable compared to the relatively complicated mechanisms involved in traditional firearms.

The problem is that it isn't really game design. Assigning rules to things because it feels like they should have them is rather thoughtless. What does giving the Long-las Reliable do to the balance of weapons? How does that affect its average damage? How does it affect the balance compared to other sniper-type weapons? Is one obviously better now?

None of those important questions are even considered in Makes Sense game design. Weapon stats should be set using math to back them up, or at least taken into consideration. Setting things based on what "feels right" or "makes sense" is not game design.

Use a combination of both makes sense and careful consideration of mechanics. Ignoring either of them is a bad idea.

For the case of las weapons, all 'makes sense' game design says is to make them reliable. If that does make them overpowered weaken them in some other way. For example, drop their ROF, ammo capacity or damage.

*snip*

First of all, I'd like to point out that removing Reliable from las weapons is not a big deal and doesn't ruin the entire setting.

In Warhammer 40,000 there's no such thing as canon. Games Workshop have said as much, and it's evident in their continual changes to the setting. From your signature, I gather you disagree with their policy on this; however, it doesn't change the fact that, ultimately, they are the owners of the IP, and only what they say carries any real weight.

Balance is an essential part of any game, otherwise players would either find the game too easy or too hard. If we were to apply full immersion to the game, most player characters would end up being menial workers who live simple lives and die young. That's how the majority of Imperial citizens live, after all.

You say that gameist ideal results in compromising the setting; conversely, narrative ideal compromises the playability. I'm not saying that either one is undesirable, rather, a balance must be achieved.

As to whether the reliability of lasguns is debatable, of course it is. If (and I'm not saying this is the case) the inclusion of Reliable on lasguns made them overpowered (or underpowered) to the point there was no reason to take anything else (or the lasguns themselves), then they need to be revised. What's the point of including something in a rulebook if there's no reason to use it? This also goes back to my second paragraph, that GW are continually revising what's "canon". There's no such thing as 'not debatable'.

Ultimately, what FFG seem to be attempting is to create a framework that will allow players from both gameist and narrativist camps to play and enjoy 2e, although it's a difficult thing to get right.

Also, I usually throw the orange peel in the trash.

I want the feel to be 40k, and I care about trying to achieve that as a meaningful goal alongside a usable set of mechanics. Obviously mechanical balance requires some sacrifice and is an indispensable goal. At the same time, I did not pick up FFG's 40k line because I wanted their d100 system or because FFG makes good games, I picked it up because I love the 40k setting in virtually every incarnation but the actual TT gaming and I wanted a workable rpg that reflected the setting.

I firmly believe that most of 40k is open to interpretation given the understanding that all information sources are not so much "canon" as primary or secondary sources, that is, they suffer from or are flawed perspective, regional variation, propaganda, misinformation, erroneous records, overstatement, outright lies or most likely a combination of the above. What is true and what is shades of the truth is up to the participant, and that is much of the genius of the setting. Make it big, make it malleable. For reference: http://www.boomtron.com/2011/03/grimdark-ii-loose-canon/

I do find the theme of lasguns as reliable workhorse weapons to be a logical and compelling one but I am fine with other las weapons not getting the same treatment if it matters for balance. I am not convinced it does and would prefer that all las weapons receive reliable as a default and barring unusual variations. I am also totally comfortable with houseruling things this way (or not bothering) if I need to since I already interpret and add to all of the fluff and the crunch FFG and the wider 40k product universe puts out because one must do so of necessity and doing so is part of what I enjoy.

In Warhammer 40,000 there's no such thing as canon. Games Workshop have said as much, and it's evident in their continual changes to the setting

True. But there are things that have been very consistent, like Space Marines always being male. Las weapons not jamming is not as strong as that, but I'm not aware of them jamming.

Though I'm also not aware of any other weapon jamming in the fluff, only that SP weapons can jam in real life.

Balance is an essential part of any game, otherwise players would either find the game too easy or too hard. If we were to apply full immersion to the game, most player characters would end up being menial workers who live simple lives and die young. That's how the majority of Imperial citizens live, after all.

You're assuming that a player character is a typical citizen of the setting. I can't think of a single RPG where that is true.

You say that gameist ideal results in compromising the setting; conversely, narrative ideal compromises the playability. I'm not saying that either one is undesirable, rather, a balance must be achieved.

Agreed. Focusing on one while ignoring the other is going to cause problems. A compromise between the two must be reached. My compromise is to make las weapons reliable then, if required, balance them in some other way.

Two questions that need to be answered for this discussion:

- How much of an advantage is a reliable weapon ?

If they are a only a tiny advantage, then the gameist argument fails.

- Are weapon jamming a good mechanic ?

Or do they just exist as a fate point sink and a way to make NPCs weaker ?

I have locked this thread, and ask those who are interested in continuing the discussion regarding reliable weapons to open a new one.

These forums exist to promote community, discussion, and creative collaboration between fans of our products. Although the forums exist online, we should all act visitors in someone else's home.

In that spirit, we will not accept any lighthearted banter, taunting, jokes, or aggression related to sensitive words or topics that make other guests uncomfortable. This is especially true regarding a concept as brutal and unforgiving as ****. There are plenty of other words available to you in your discussions about games. If you do not know of any, use a thesaurus or do not post.

Please treat others with respect, even if you have trouble understanding why someone else is bothered by your comment. We are all human here. Try and remember that.

Thanks for taking an active part in our forums.

Keep playing,

FFG Webmaster