Just wanted to get some more oppinions on this topic.

As far as I understand, the Chirurgeon role and the Sage role would match best to play a "classical" Techpriest (if you set aside rather specialized versions like e.g. the Crimson Guard, Secutors or Mech Assassins).

The Sage rather fulfills the role of a Techpriest who is more into theories and logic.

The Chirurgeon is rather what I would call a Magos Biologis.

But what would be the best role to play a classical Techpriest, who is primarily a mechanist / mechanical engineer ?

From a crafting point of view, I would also see this role inside the chirurgeon - this would lead to the problem though, that there is no differentiation between the Biologis and the mechanical fraction...

Furthermore, Chirurgeons always have this "healer"-factor...

Wouldnt it be better to give 2 options when taking the chirurgeon role (maybe 2 special abilities to chose from ?)) ?

One that is rather a biologis/medic, and one that is rather an engineer/mechanic ?

Or you make an additional "Technician"-role, which differs from the chirurgeon.

In my oppinion, the technician aspect is too much merged with the medic aspect.

Same if I want to play an Imperial Guardsman who is into vehicles.

I currently miss a role for that (adding the fact that the new rules seem the emphasize vehicles more, this is double-odd).

As I type this, I am getting the oppinion, that it indeed might be best to make a seperate role for "Technician", which also includes a good skill with vehicles in general.

What do you think ?

Sage has cheap Tech Use and a useful special rule. Just sayin'.

A usefull special rule yes - but no relation to technical expertise or vehicle/machine focus.

He is also just an average Pilot (although he is still better than the CHirurgeon, who really sucks in this field).

Also...maybe it is just me...but the picture of a Sage in my head does not wield a tool in his hand; at least not one that is not intended to write...

I rather related the Tech-Use expertise towards "IT"-skills (using cogitators for data analysis etc.).

I myself wouldnt mess up Sage, Chirurgeon and Technician.

If you give a Chirurgeon a special role, a Technician would also rather be one...

I'd say Sage is a perfect fit. It's important to consider that the central tenet of the Priesthood of Mars faith is the pursuit of knowledge.

The Cult Mechanicus originated during the Age of Strife. According to its teachings, knowledge is the supreme manifestation of divinity, and all creatures and artefacts that embody knowledge are holy because of it. Machines that preserve knowledge from ancient times are also holy, and machine intelligences are no less divine than those of flesh and blood. A man's worth is only the sum of his knowledge - his body is simply an organic machine capable of preserving intellect.

That's just from the Lexicanum article, but it summarises things pretty well, and I can easily find this stuff in GW approved sources if you want. Point is, Techpriests aren't just mechanics in robes, they're people who are religiously obsessed with the pursuit of knowledge. So Sage is a perfect fit.

They get cheap Logic, Medicae, Tech-Use and Remembrance. That really covers all the core skills of your typical Techpriest. Cheap Intelligence too.

I really don't see the need for another Role, when Sage does the job fine.

And how do you build an Enginseer then ?

Or an Ex-Imperial Guard Pilot ?

Or a Reclaimator ?

Those would all be good opportunities for a Technician role to shine.

And how do you build an Enginseer then ?

Or an Ex-Imperial Guard Pilot ?

Or a Reclaimator ?

Those would all be good opportunities for a Technician role to shine.

Enginseer is pretty much the bog-standard tech-priest on temporary loan to Departmento Munitorum, so Sage still works.

Reclaimator is an outcast scrounger, so I guess Desperado is the way to go.

I don't know what the pilot has to do with either AdMech or a hypothetical mechanic role.

Reclaimator: Outcast Background fully agreed; but Desperado...? I dont know...not really hitting the spot. This guy is a tech-dabbler, not a gunslinger-kind.

Nah...Sage does not work with a Enginseer well. A Sage (as I view it) is more into theories / knowledge. An enginseer is a MUCH more crafty type. In general, the chirurgeon can be better seen as a man who should know how to use his hands right - but he does so on biological targets, not so much machines...

Pilot was just another example of a field not really covered so far.

As the new talents give a lot of options in this regard, I would have liked to see a role that spezializes a little bit better with this field.

As also the technician part is a little lackluster, and those 2 could go well together, I would have opted to make 1 role out of them.

But currently both cannot really well be covered in my eyes.

Of course you can improvise somehow and bend definitions...but it doesnt really feel complete to me.

Sage is mister know-it-all (cheap Remembrance and Logic, special rule) and a master technician (cheap Tech Use).

Any Tech-Priest worth his salt is exactly that - a master of both lore and tech.

Reclaimator may as well be an Outcast Sage, if he's supposed to be that good at tech stuff. I have a feeling most reclaimators aren't supposed to even get close to the level of savvy that AdMech possesses, but will be more flexible and survivable, hence Desperado works.

I agree that mechanically it would work.

My main problem with this is, that I see the Sage as rather this nerdy book-guy.

Not so much as this crafty Pilot-Ace Guy.

And WHY is this nerdy guy as agile as an assassin ?!?!?

Well maybe you need to broaden your view of the role? Currently it covers most stripes of Techpriest pretty **** well.

If you want an ace-pilot, you'd go Desperado. Cheap Agility advances, cheap Pilot advances; that basically covers it. Sure, they don't make for a perfect technician, but their Int and Tech-Use advances aren't on the expensive end of things, and really you can only cover so many areas of expertise with one character, which makes perfect sense.

Maybe you are right.

It is sometimes hard to work with the descriptions / terms given.

One more problem with chargen as presented: the rather detailed descriptions of roles are in direct contradiction with the passage saying that roles don't do much to define character's place in the universe at all.

My big problem with AdMech characters is, there is no option for combat-heavy character that'd also have cheap Tech Use.

You mean like a Secutor ?

Yes, exactly. Or a Venator, or Skitarii, or any other guy whose primary areas of focus are combat and technology both. Current Roles force me to give up some effectiveness on one end or another.

I think that's a good thing, honestly. The way roles work mean you have to spend that bit extra XP if you want to play a more hybrid of jack of all trades type role, which seems like a fair tradeoff for the versatility.

Would be nice anyway to be able to focus on another combination of skills.

Like Morangias says - why not having a Tech-Fighter, who has other fields he lacks in ?

At the moment you can have a Agile-Fighter (Assassin) and a Military-Fighter (Warrior), but the "Tech-Fighter" would get punished by higher costs.

I think it could indeed make sense to publish new roles alongside with backgrounds & homeworlds later on in upcoming supplements.

For the beginning, the given generic roles might be sufficient, but I would like to see some more specific roles later on (or even role-subtypes).

I think that's a good thing, honestly. The way roles work mean you have to spend that bit extra XP if you want to play a more hybrid of jack of all trades type role, which seems like a fair tradeoff for the versatility.

Or, it will encourage everyone to make cookie cutter characters.

I wouldn't exactly consider a warrior who also does tech stuff a "jack of all trades". Certainly didn't feel like one when I played my Mechanicus Secutor in 1e.

I still feel there should be a tech-priest role.

I still feel there should be a tech-priest role.

Do you mean Role or Background? Either way this is a bad post. Back up your assertions with some kind of justification.

I agree that mechanically it would work.

My main problem with this is, that I see the Sage as rather this nerdy book-guy.

Not so much as this crafty Pilot-Ace Guy.

But Tech-Priests aren't all that hands-on, usually. That random IG TP isn't doing any of the physical stuff if he can help it. There's servitors, serfs & guardsmen for that stuff, and the TP is duty bound not to risk life and limb when more expendable persons/resources can do it for him. And, of course, he's duty bound to to not waste his time on "lesser" pursuits when circumstances allow.

In the real world there aren't any ace pilots who're also expert scientists. Not because real world people can't in principle be both (several famous people have gone from being one to the other), but because there's not enough time to maintain two such extremely demanding expertises simultaneously.

Perhaps if the Cult and/or Inquisition wanted to make it happen, it could. In 40K the tech exists to make people acquire both muscle- and ordinary memory. But it's not something your typical acolyte would have access to.

And WHY is this nerdy guy as agile as an assassin ?!?!?

School bully taught him to run real fast?

I have no idea. I actually thought one of the updates changed this, but I may be imagining things.

I still feel there should be a tech-priest role.

Do you mean Role or Background? Either way this is a bad post. Back up your assertions with some kind of justification.

Well, 1e Tech-Priest was a pretty unique combination that current roles don't support all too well. The combination of brains and immense toughness at the cost of both mobility and social skills made him easily distinguishable from equally (if not more so) brainy Adept, who was decently social and quite agile, but physically frail. Currently, no Role supports this exact combination of traits.

At the same time, making a TP Role seems to run contrary to the idea of how the chargen is supposed to work, as it would dictate one's place in the game world more definitely than the Roles are supposed to. Then again, in 40k, being a Tech-Priest is quite officially the only way to do more than dabble in tech...

Man, somebody should sit down and rethink the basics of this new chargen. The vagueness of Background/Role dichotomy in relation to char's place in the game world is really bugging me.

I still feel there should be a tech-priest role.

Do you mean Role or Background? Either way this is a bad post. Back up your assertions with some kind of justification.

Well, 1e Tech-Priest was a pretty unique combination that current roles don't support all too well. The combination of brains and immense toughness at the cost of both mobility and social skills made him easily distinguishable from equally (if not more so) brainy Adept, who was decently social and quite agile, but physically frail. Currently, no Role supports this exact combination of traits.

At the same time, making a TP Role seems to run contrary to the idea of how the chargen is supposed to work, as it would dictate one's place in the game world more definitely than the Roles are supposed to. Then again, in 40k, being a Tech-Priest is quite officially the only way to do more than dabble in tech...

Man, somebody should sit down and rethink the basics of this new chargen. The vagueness of Background/Role dichotomy in relation to char's place in the game world is really bugging me.

Chargen is pretty solid. If you can't wrap your head around "Where did you come from?" and "How do you approach problems?" as chargen mechanisms I don't really know what to tell you. Making a Role that was explicitly an AdMech role would violate the pattern they've defined. The 'vagueness' is one of its biggest strengths, allowing players to define their characters in ways restricted by the other games.

I get the basic idea, but the pieces don't match. All the new system does is detach the starting packages from exp tables, but the starting packages are too rigid and the exp tables (the de facto more important part of chargen, as it's the stuff you'll be stuck with for the rest of the game) have issues matching the iconic concepts of the setting (such as the discussed TP).

The greater freedom is an illusion. I've tried recreating all the characters I've played or seen in play in DH1 and I kept hitting snag after snag, except for the least inspired, most cookie cutter concepts.

I'd really like to hear what those snags were because I don't see the absence of every permutation of cheap/medium/expensive skills/characteristics as a drawback to the current system. What character could you make in DH1 that DH2 didn't cover? How is the freedom offered by the system an illusion?

And let's remember this is the core rulebook. There are a lot of specialized types of characters in DH1 supplements. We don't need to have every possible character in DH1 covered by the core book for DH2 (rather, we shouldn't expect it because FFG will definitely publish books with more options).

I think the characters from the dh1 core book can all be created easily with the dh2 options.

Only exception which still is not perfect, is the techpriest somehow...sage seems to be an "ok" workaround, but is not really smooth...

For other character sub-classes like the dh1 supplements provided with their alternate ranks, I am curious how and if they want to have something like that now...maye as elite packages ? Or as more specific roles/sub-roles ?