If you have used Sisters from a source where they are meant to fight alongside Space Marines, then perhaps you should have also used Space Marines from that source. Yet you didn't. Was it truly your concern for chronology that you had to go scavenge material from entirely different games, which was never intended to be used in a Deathwatch environment?

I'm also curious at what would have been so difficult at describing melee positions over the internet.

Statements to the contrary, assuming they we adhere to the Correspondence Theory of Truth, are something called "false."

Fortunately this was not my argument at all.

If you have used Sisters from a source where they are meant to fight alongside Space Marines, then perhaps you should have also used Space Marines from that source. Yet you didn't. Was it truly your concern for chronology that you had to go scavenge material from entirely different games, which was never intended to be used in a Deathwatch environment?

I'm also curious at what would have been so difficult at describing melee positions over the internet.

Statements to the contrary, assuming they we adhere to the Correspondence Theory of Truth, are something called "false."

Fortunately this was not my argument at all.

I can use space marines from that source if you want, but it won't make a difference except that he won't suffer from Blood Loss and so will probably last a little longer because they are pretty much identical in relevant respects.

Look I'll explain it. Marine runs forward x meters. Sister one runs in 30 angle from marine. Sister 2 runs in different angle. Sister 3 runs in third angle. Sister 4 runs in another angle. Things get very complicated. That's why it's hard to describe narratively. Now one could hypothetically just have them all stand there and bash each other (stupidly, since Sisters are ranged combatants, and therefore should try to stay out of melee), in which case would probably win UNLESS they get to use their Faith Powers, in which case we would see if the combination if Ganging Up + Wrath of the Righteous makes up for his superior Strength and defense. (They do 1d10+1d5+6 Pen 0 with their Sarristas and RF on 9 and 10, whereas his combat knife does 1d10+10 Pen 2. Hey they actually do about the same average damage as he does.). Hmmm maybe I will try that.

Oh wait -- they have Holy Light too, so his melee attacks are at -20. Not so good for him.

Actually your wanting them to move, use cover, etc. is strange because it works AGAINST the Marine and FOR the Sisters, because they outnumber him and therefore are going to get shots at his back etc. if he moves anywhere as they fan out. They have Hip Shooting BTW.

(Caveat: a marine CAN use Called Shot as a Half Action with auto-senses, so that might give him a slight advantage in a cover scenario. On the other hand, the Sisters have a higher BS than he does if their helmets are included.)

Anyway I actually GIMPED THEM. They got no faith powers. They got no fate points. They didn't even get their helmets. What they were is highly trained human beings in light power armour with boltguns,

To be frank, I find your position utterly baffling. Sisters of Battle are not underpowered at all in their most recent incarnation. That you seem to want to go back to a weaker version of them in Ascension tells me that you have some kind of deep need to believe them to be underpowered. They're not. They're quite tough.

It's some kind of martyr complex.

Anyway I have to finish translating a history of the 1905 Revolution in the real world. Stuff I get paid money for.

The question has, to my mind at least, and I believe to anybody objective , been answered. Marines are not overly overpowered in their BC/OW forms (or even in their normal Deathwatch forms at Rank 1 really, not counting Squad Modes and such, especially if the post-errata weapon stats [= the BC/OW stats for the most part] are used).

(Sisters though. MAN! -20 to hit them in close combat and daemons near them just take automatic damage every round! Righteous Fury on 9 or 10 like Necrons! +5 Ballistic Skill from their helmet! What? Not even Marines get that! What do the kids say? IMBA! IMBA!)

I can use space marines from that source if you want, but it won't make a difference except that he won't suffer from Blood Loss and so will probably last a little longer because they are pretty much identical in relevant respects.

Don't forget that the Marine's armour would also have him ignore the effects from Critical Injuries for 1d10 rounds per dose of pain suppressant.

Look I'll explain it. Marine runs forward x meters. Sister one runs in 30 angle from marine. Sister 2 runs in different angle. Sister 3 runs in third angle. Sister 4 runs in another angle. Things get very complicated. That's why it's hard to describe narratively.

It's not. You just did.

Where exactly the characters are positioned would be entirely immaterial for the readers - what happens is that they have a rough idea of positions and distances to follow, so something like "fanning out, ending up at X meters to their target" would be entirely sufficient. Followed by the Marine probably trying to charge one of them and ending up in close combat.

Anyway I actually GIMPED THEM. They got no faith powers. They got no fate points. They didn't even get their helmets. What they were is highly trained human beings in light power armour with boltguns,

You also gimped your Space Marine. He's got no Demeanours, no Solo- or (if he's a Kill-Marine) Squad Mode Abilities, and no Fate Points either. You also did not have him engage in melee, not to mention the Blood Loss prevention and Pain Suppressors you left out.

To be frank, I find your position utterly baffling. Sisters of Battle are not underpowered at all in their most recent incarnation. That you seem to want to go back to a weaker version of them in Ascension tells me that you have some kind of deep need to believe them to be underpowered. They're not. They're quite tough.

Apparently you do not even understand what my position actually is. Let me try to clarify once more:

Regardless of how much you seem bound to limiting my argument to this, it's not (just) about Battle Sisters. It's not even (just) about Space Marines. It is about how Toughness as a whole works in the games, how it can make the GM's job harder, combat less fun, and mess with mixed groups of any kind on basis of the stacking gap in TB and AP.

But, since you touched on that topic, I can of course also convey my thoughts about SoB in this system:

*I* find it baffling how you can type "not underpowered" with a straight face when you felt the need to pit four against one . To repeat, how exactly is such a constellation supposed to work in an actual game? Will you have a single Space Marine as a boss enemy for a squad of four Battle Sisters, or will a squad of four Space Marines fight a Horde of 20 Battle Sisters? Or, in a mixed party, do you think it's okay if the SoB character is 1/4th of the Space Marine character?

(Sisters though. MAN! -20 to hit them in close combat and daemons near them just take automatic damage every round! Righteous Fury on 9 or 10 like Necrons! +5 Ballistic Skill from their helmet! What? Not even Marines get that! What do the kids say? IMBA! IMBA!)

For the record, I too find the Acts of Faith from Blood of Martyrs to be (a) overpowered and (b) uncharacteristic. They are a bad representation of their original fluff, and it is sad to see that this boost in "space magic" was accompanied by an actual nerf to their purely martial skills, given that those cost more XP in the new advancement scheme than in the old one. A detail you seem ignorant to, or perhaps you just think this version is, for some reason, more interesting - there's, of course, no accounting for taste, and fluff in 40k has always allowed for multiple interpretations on the majority of such details.

The question has, to my mind at least, and I believe to anybody objective , been answered.

Independent from your insulting insinuation, I agree, and I am just as frustrated at this debate moving in circles as you are. As I've already mentioned, there is no common ground to be found when our interpretations of both the material and of what makes a fun game environment for any member of the party are so different from the start.

Good luck with that translation.

It's quite possible to have a unified system, where everyone works on the same scale and is built with the same talents etc. This doesn't make mixed parties a much better idea, but they'll at least not cause mathematical headaches.
GURPS is one such system and while you can build a Space Marine as easily as Scum from the underhive, they would not be fair to mix in a group. In GURPS this would be quite obvious and explicit, because everything that differs from the baseline stats is assigned a point value. So a Space Marine template, the basic set of traits and skills (and some equipment, most likely), would cost several hundreds of points. If everyone plays an SM, then you can say that it's 'free' and just go ahead. If you try to play a hive ganger built on a measly 50 points next to the SM, then, well, obviously it's not fair.

So I wonder, Lynata, how do you imagine mixed groups should work?
To me, it's obvious that either you leave them well alone and keep everyone at the same level, or you give everyone a niche to shine in. If that means that the scholar will sit out every fight, and that there are some fights where only the Space Marine fights, because it's too dangerous for everyone else, then that can be fun too. As long as all the others get their 'moment in the limelight'.


Point values, it has to be said, do not equate to power level, merely to potential for learning.
A 150-point soldier will easily defeat a 300-point scholar, but the scholar will know something about almost anything, and quite a lot about many things, while the soldier is REALLY good at fighting.

So I wonder, Lynata, how do you imagine mixed groups should work?

To me, it's obvious that either you leave them well alone and keep everyone at the same level, or you give everyone a niche to shine in. If that means that the scholar will sit out every fight, and that there are some fights where only the Space Marine fights, because it's too dangerous for everyone else, then that can be fun too. As long as all the others get their 'moment in the limelight'.

Pretty much the niche approach, yes.

The problem with the current system(s) is that even characters who specialise on combat would be overshadowed by other archetypes if you throw the different games together. Giving everyone access to the same level of guns, however, would already make a lot of difference in regards to how useful people would feel in an encounter. Even the Scholar who did not plan on getting into a fight could feel like they actually contribute to this segment of the game simply because they wield a weapon that feels just as capable of harming an enemy - they simply are not encouraged to get hit due to their squishiness, and leave the aggressive fighting to the experts.

This is similar to how even combat-focused characters could assist in non-combat challenges by contributing with their input of ideas, or specialised knowledge occasionally being of use .. and similar to how it already works in Dark Heresy.

This does not even have to do with how Toughness currently works, though I believe the issues to be connected (in that we might not have different categories of weapons and even enemies if Marines would have, say, more Wounds instead of more TB). But technically, it would be possible to do away with the gun disparity without touching Toughness. It would simply necessitate everyone else being a bit more careful, and consolidate the role of Astartes (or other Toughness monsters such as OW Ogryn) as the party's "tank".

Obviously, even between combat-focused characters, it is not exactly wrong to have different power levels - what I am against is the gap between them. To be precise, it is entirely appropriate that a rank-and-file Guardsman or a smalltime Scummer from the streets would be hopelessly outmatched if put into the same group with Astartes, but this should be an issue of gear, less so of the characters being "only human". Give them better equipment and watch them suddenly becoming a lot more useful at least in ranged combat.

Essentially, I would segregate the game into different "power levels" - but have one that has not only Space Marines but also exceptionally well trained/experienced/equipped humans, such as Inquisitors, Assassins and, yes, Battle Sisters.

For the Guardsman to proceed to this level, an idea that I mentioned in another thread was to have him or her gain command of a number of NPCs - so that even whilst the character would remain close to "IG style" with lasgun and flak armour, the player could feel important on the basis of having their own squad to assist the others in battle. Said squad could focus on anything from lasgun salvos to a heavy weapon team carrying a lascannon into battle, all depending on how the player chooses to "customise" his team, and on the focus of the game (hidden investigation or open combat readiness).

While I really like the idea, I'm concerned about making it all entirely gear-dependant. I agree that there should only be one armoury and that this would help. The non-combat guys could grab some long-range weapons and stay back and still contribute.

However, I don't think it would do the high power characters justice and would certainly be somewhat unsatisfying to me, if all their higher power came from gear.

At least some gap.should still be there, so that with no or with the same gear they would still be better.

The "gear equaliser" bit is admittedly a matter of interpretation - an opinion of mine that has emerged over the past couple years, though it fits nicely with the development of warfare in our real world.

Anyways, wouldn't said high power characters still be "better" on the basis of having additional options on how to conduct the battle? You'd have snipers picking off high profile targets with few but devastating shots, close combat experts charging the opposition to bring confusion into enemy ranks, and heavily armoured warriors being able to shield their comrades and better survive tactical advances, or intercept a charging enemy.

These are the factors where skill and talent would come into play ... and, of course, also ability scores, especially in the case of Space Marines.

Non-combat characters will probably also not be as well equipped for combat as the specialists, so even though the Scribe may wield a gun that lets him feel useful, his lack of heavy armour would mean he'd likely opt to stay in the back.

Just to be on the safe side, though, what exactly did you mean when referring to "high power characters"? Was that referring to combat specialists, or characters of a higher rank/level?

I do agree with Lynata about having a uniform Armoury- a boltgun is a boltgun is a boltgun, so to speak.

My only hesitation would be that boltguns were originally designed for use by the Astartes- they are a heavy, sturdy weapon. I guess it would help to remember things like item weights (Encumbrance). And that bolts are not rocket-propelled until after leaving the barrel.

Also, I think there may be a fundamental misunderstanding of "unified system"- a unified system does not necessarily mean complete balance between individuals (PCs, NPCs, creatures, and etc) so much as it means the core mechanics interact seamlessly with themselves (are "balanced"). It may be easiest to think about core mechanics (Characteristics, combat, psychics, Tests/DoS/DoF, Corruption/Insanity, and etc) first and then input PCs and etc into the core as scaling determiners. This may end up with "naked" Humans and "naked" Astartes being not much different in the scale, but it is then the Skills/Talents, gear and weapons they have access to determining their capability to perform the task or role to which they apply themselves. A Guardsman wearing Flak Armour and using a Lasgun is less fearsome than an Astartes in Power Armour and using a Boltgun, especially when individually opposed to each other. There are literally limitless permutations of opposition, however- three lowly scribes might be able to take down an Astartes by toppling bookshelves weighing many thousands of kilos.

I'm still of a mind that all Advances have unilateral XP costs- ie: combat Skills/Talents would cost X XP for combat-oriented individuals, no matter Human, Astartes, Eldar, or Ork, or X+ XP for non-combat individuals.

And then there is the ever-present random factor of dice mechanics, but again, I think if the core mechanics are "balanced" with themselves the three lowly scribes deserve to survive against an Astartes that has his one (and final) day of "bad luck" (poor dice results).

Very true. "Balance between individuals" is just a sub-wish of mine, though something I regard as beneficial and, with the help of a unified system, easy to do.

I should stress, however, that even this sub-idea would have "tiers" of power where it might be unwise to mix parties regardless of said tier. It's just that there wouldn't be as massive a gap between them, and that Marines wouldn't be alone in theirs.

For some time, FFG already attempted to introduce a tiered system here with rank equivalences where, say, Rank 9 in Dark Heresy was supposed to be equal to Rank 5 in Rogue Trader and Rank 1 in Deathwatch, but needless to say the unintentional mechanical differences between the systems, and the intentional narrative differences that influenced them, generally don't have this work out as well. This is where a unified system could "come to the rescue".

[edit] As for bolters, I always just pictured the Marine version to simply be a bit bigger, with extra armour to protect against the stress of close combat and a bigger ammunition count in the magazines - it's funny how the books in these RPGs use terminology like "Astartes calibre" whilst at the same time saying it's .75 inches, exactly the same dimension given for "civilian calibre" in the Dark Heresy book.

So a unified (balanced core) system, with PCs/NPCs/creatures determining scaling within the unified system, and scale determining the tier of play. It would only become a problem when mixing tiers of play, and that isn't really a problem so much as it is a personal preference, or style of play adopted by individual gaming groups- if someone wants to mix Astartes and Humans they know based on scale the two are not within the same tiers of play, and to mix them is no fault of the system (or theirs), instead it most closley represents how diverse the 40k setting is and how dangerous it might become.

EDIT- All this debate has made me realize the thought process behind Hordes- Deathwatch presents the possibility of Space Marines being opposed by large numbers of opponents, and no one wants to roll dice for 40 individual Lasgun shots, so Horde Damage was devised as a conciliatory nod to high-volume attacks. It's just a shortcut to quick-play mass combat.

Aye, indeed.

And for what it's worth, one could argue we already have this (potential) problem in the current DH with the new BoM Battle Sister getting power armour on Rank 1.

The forum ate my post!

I'll try again.

A GM that allows a SoB or Astartes PC to begin with Power Armour is allowing it willingly, or as a concession to a Player's idea of his/her PC's iconic appearance. This, again, is not a fault of the game system (well, it is in the example of BoM because that publication openly says "starts with Power Armour"). Access to Power Armour implies extensive training, which in turn implies higher Rank (with a R, not a r), which means the GM is either willingly mixing tiers of play or conceding to it.

In the book 'Faith And Fire', Mirya was a veteran Sororitas Militant (wearing Power Armour). The "emo" Hospitaler (I forget her name) wore simple robes, but this in no way meant she was no less a veteran, simply that she was not a Sister Militant. I guess what I'm trying to say is you have to start at the bottom, even if you eventually become a veteran Sister Militant- starting with Power Armour essentially means you're not at the bottom anymore, and the tier of play in which you belong is proportionately higher. Whether the GM puts that PC in that tier or mixes tiers is not the fault of the game system.

That's why I actually liked the idea of "Detached Novices" from the Inquisitor's Handbook. It was a clever way to offer a militant Sororitas character without the headache of power armour and bolters next to the flak-wearing Guardsman and the leather-clad ganger.

This got me thinking - perhaps, a good approach for a unified system would be to feature overarching levels (Ranks) to better allow a GM and their players to gauge the "power level" of a character. What I mean by this is that not all characters would actually have a career starting at Rank 1, but rather a higher Rank to allow direct comparison to any other archetype in the game. This way, it would be easy to see what could fit nicely into the same group and what would be a stretch, as well as to determine the party's own "overall threat level" to find appropriate enemies in combat encounters.

For bonus points, some of these higher-Ranked classes could actually work not only new and "out of the box", but have characters from other classes "buy into them" once they reach the correct level range, essentially switching classes (whilst retaining any inherent advantages and disadvantages from their former class). So higher-Ranked classes would basically be "stand-alone Specialisations", if you will.

PS: Verity

DH2 appears to still have Toughness Bonus as "skin armour", so for better or worse this probably means that Space Marines will continue to be fairly invincible in certain conditions of martial combat, with all the problems that occur should you ever mix them with "lesser" characters.

If you check the official GW studio fluff Space Marines have, and have always had "skin armour". Page 153 Rogue Trader: "A special black plastic carapace is merged with their natural flesh, forming a sort of identity tag as well as permanent protection"

[edit] As for bolters, I always just pictured the Marine version to simply be a bit bigger, with extra armour to protect against the stress of close combat and a bigger ammunition count in the magazines - it's funny how the books in these RPGs use terminology like "Astartes calibre" whilst at the same time saying it's .75 inches, exactly the same dimension given for "civilian calibre" in the Dark Heresy book.

Check this picture. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/20mm3.jpg Can you guess which cartridge is used by astartes and which cartridge fits in the pink bolter mags? All of them are ~0.75" cal.

PS: Verity

I'm not a fan of the Rank nomenclature, or the fact that it's even used to denote "level", but I understand what you mean. I view Rank through the lens of total XP (spent).

What I understand you to be saying : total XP (spent) determines Tier, Tier can aid in determining which PCs mix more equitably (an experienced Sister Militant is more on par with a competent non-veteran Astartes Scout than a "green" Guardsman) and the approximate threat level of the PC group when determining opposition.

By "bonus points" I assume you mean additional XP cost?

If you check the official GW studio fluff Space Marines have, and have always had "skin armour". Page 153 Rogue Trader: "A special black plastic carapace is merged with their natural flesh, forming a sort of identity tag as well as permanent protection"

My criticism against Toughness Bonus as skin armour applies across the board. In FFG's 40k RPGs, everyone has "skin armour". If you are now pointing towards the Black Carapace as the reason for why Astartes have TB, does this not only make it appear all the more weird?

PS: Back in Rogue Trader, Marines were mechanically no tougher than Guardsman. Apparently even then the writers didn't think the Black Carapace would change that much about their resilience.

The change to T4 came together with new background about hardened ribcages from the Phase 2 Ossmodula implant.

Check this picture. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/20mm3.jpg Can you guess which cartridge is used by astartes and which cartridge fits in the pink bolter mags? All of them are ~0.75" cal.

That's easy. None of them .

If you check the official GW studio fluff Space Marines have, and have always had "skin armour". Page 153 Rogue Trader: "A special black plastic carapace is merged with their natural flesh, forming a sort of identity tag as well as permanent protection"

My criticism against Toughness Bonus as skin armour applies across the board. In FFG's 40k RPGs, everyone has "skin armour". If you are now pointing towards the Black Carapace as the reason for why Astartes have TB, does this not only make it appear all the more weird?

PS: Back in Rogue Trader, Marines were mechanically no tougher than Guardsman. Apparently even then the writers didn't think the Black Carapace would change that much about their resilience.

The change to T4 came together with new background about hardened ribcages from the Phase 2 Ossmodula implant.

"A kid throws a rock at you. Please roll 1D100. If you roll 33 or lower the rock will penetrate your power armour and have 17% chance of killing you."

"You get hit by a 40mm APFSDSDU projectile. Please roll 1D100. If you roll 33 or lower the projectile will penetra..."

TB is a combination of a lof of things.

If a nude TB8 space marine gets hit by a autogun for 5 damage before TB it's possible that the bullet passed straight through the marine without hitting anything vital. Space marines don't bleed and the small permanent cavity didn't cause enough tissue damage to motivate losing 1 wound. A nude TB4 SOB hit by the same projectile will bleed and the permanent cavity will be larger relative to total body size even if the total tissue damage is the same.

Space marines should be very hard to kill with small arms. They don't bleed out from hits to vital organs. A shot through the heart that will kill a normal human in 10-15 seconds is no problem for a marine. The blood loss will be minimal and they have a extra heart. You need to hit the cns or destroy a large part of their body to down a space marine.

Check this picture. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/20mm3.jpg Can you guess which cartridge is used by astartes and which cartridge fits in the pink bolter mags? All of them are ~0.75" cal.

That's easy. None of them .

My point is that different 0.75 cal rounds can have very different projectile weight/length/muzzle energy.

Looking at your picture the offical GW studio fluff is that bolters (short cartridges) and storm bolters (longer cartridges) use different ammo.

The "gear equaliser" bit is admittedly a matter of interpretation - an opinion of mine that has emerged over the past couple years, though it fits nicely with the development of warfare in our real world.

Anyways, wouldn't said high power characters still be "better" on the basis of having additional options on how to conduct the battle? You'd have snipers picking off high profile targets with few but devastating shots, close combat experts charging the opposition to bring confusion into enemy ranks, and heavily armoured warriors being able to shield their comrades and better survive tactical advances, or intercept a charging enemy.

These are the factors where skill and talent would come into play ... and, of course, also ability scores, especially in the case of Space Marines.

Non-combat characters will probably also not be as well equipped for combat as the specialists, so even though the Scribe may wield a gun that lets him feel useful, his lack of heavy armour would mean he'd likely opt to stay in the back.

Just to be on the safe side, though, what exactly did you mean when referring to "high power characters"? Was that referring to combat specialists, or characters of a higher rank/level?

I mean characters with a higher point total; who've spent more XP or just started with more Advantages, better characteristics, possibly extra gear. Essentially higher level.

I'm a bit confused by your bit on having more options in combat, because all the examples you cite are specialized in one area of combat.

Higher point value means that you could take more options, or go into more depth with the ones you had before. So that a non-combat guy might be decent at shooting and knows how to hold a knife, while the combat guy can shoot well and knows ten different ways to kill you in close combat. Meanwhile, out of combat, the non-combat guy has a rank in every lore skill and a few points in almost all social skills, while the combat guy is good at intimidating and almost nothing else.

To keep the gap reasonable, GURPS has the 'Rule of 16': At the end of the day, whatever you do, the skill you're rolling against can not be higher than 16 (on 3d: 3-18). A guy with skill-16 and a guy with skill-24 will thus have the same chance of success.

However: The guy with skill-24 can do a Deceptive Attack, taking -8 to his skill for a -4 to the enemy's defense and STILL roll against 16. He has thus more options. A guy with skill-12 could also roll against 16, but he'd have to do the opposite: A Telegraphic Attack at +4 skill but giving +2 to the enemy's defense.

In a non-combat example, both would be equally good at uncovering freely available knowledge, but the guy with skill-24 would be able to find secret or rare knowledge at the same rate. Again, because he can just eat more penalties.

40k RPG using rules based on the tabletop game [...] TB is a combination of a lof of things.

I know what TB is supposed to represent; it's just not doing a good job at it imo. Rather than allowing a Space Marine - or anyone else - to better deal with injuries still suffered , it often prevents them outright, as if that autogun round in your example would ricochet off a character's skin, leaving nothing but a blue mark. Keep in mind that we are also talking about lasguns flash-boiling entire body regions, or armour-piercing miniature rockets detonating inside your body. Space Marine or not, this ought to hurt.

In fact, the changes to Righteous Fury now result in exactly what you are apparently attempting to avoid - that a thrown rock will cause the same injury as a real gun, provided the attackers both roll and confirm RF.

As far as GW's own game systems are concerned, Space Marines die to auto- and lasguns all the time, in their tabletop, in their fluff, and in their Inquisitor game. Granted, in Deathwatch, this could be represented by the Horde rules, but personally I'd rather have weapons possess a consistent damage profile rather than seeing it magically increase just because 10 guys fire their weapons in a squad, rather than individually.

My point is that different 0.75 cal rounds can have very different projectile weight/length/muzzle energy.Looking at your picture the offical GW studio fluff is that bolters (short cartridges) and storm bolters (longer cartridges) use different ammo.

Oh, I got your point - it's just nothing supported by anything in either GW's or FFG's own material, which makes such mechanical differences come across a bit arbitrary (though I perceive the reason to be rooted within the TB problem).

Bolt projectiles gain their velocity (and thus a good part of their kinetic energy, together with mass) not from how fast they leave the muzzle but from the miniature rocket that kicks in after it has left the barrel, whilst muzzle speed was said to be "low" (it has to be, given that Stalker silenced shells are subsonic). Besides, a bolt's raw damage should come from the explosive charge that detonates immediately after penetration - the kinetic energy of the round should only affect Pen.

GW sources have consistently made bolters (and other weapons) no different between Marines and other humans, both in their version of the fluff as well as in the rules of their games. In Dark Heresy, there's a flat 33% difference in raw damage between "Astartes" and "civilian" bolters - in the tabletop, this would actually place normal bolters closer to lasguns. And in GW's Inquisitor game, which uses a d100/d10 mechanic as well, everyone gets the same boltguns anyways.

But that is kind of immaterial - 40k does not have a universally consistent background, and different interpretations are intentional and to be expected. The different weapon classes are just one example of where FFG's version currently deviates from GW's. What my comment was actually aiming at was that FFG never gave us a reason for why the Marines get "+1 weapons", neither in-universe nor OOC, leaving us to speculate. FFG's "Astartes calibre" bolts are pictured in the Deathwatch core rulebook; do they want to tell me that "civilian calibre" bolts (which have the same calibre as per their own background) are somehow even smaller?

And that's before we get to other weird stuff like Astartes plasma or flamers apparently burning a couple degrees hotter, too.

I'm a bit confused by your bit on having more options in combat, because all the examples you cite are specialized in one area of combat.

Higher point value means that you could take more options, or go into more depth with the ones you had before. So that a non-combat guy might be decent at shooting and knows how to hold a knife, while the combat guy can shoot well and knows ten different ways to kill you in close combat. Meanwhile, out of combat, the non-combat guy has a rank in every lore skill and a few points in almost all social skills, while the combat guy is good at intimidating and almost nothing else.

That's exactly what I meant - to go back to my examples, those options would all work in addition to the possibility of just standing there, shooting. Sorry if I was unclear there. Anyways, we seem to be on the same track!

Also, that's a rather clever idea @ GURPS... It ensures that characters with a high chance to succeed do not just take the "easiest route" with guaranteed success, but still gets a bonus from their characteristics by refining their attack.

This is probably not something that should be applied to any test (imho, there are things where auto-success is a good thing), but for combat it seems like a smart thing.

I always just assumed that a space marine being a much larger and stronger man was carrying a much larger version of the Bolter thereby having a larger caliber round in it's clip. This seems the most realistic to me even if FFG didn't say so.

Well, technically, there's nothing wrong with using such an assumption and just ignoring what it says in the books. I'm sure we are all doing this somewhere.

It pretty much boils down to what we want Space Marines to be - both in terms of how they'd work in our interpretation of the setting, as well as how "compatible" we would like them to be with other characters in terms of mixed groups.

This, of course, is entirely a matter of taste/preferences.

Yeah, I'm glad we agree and thanks for the clarification.

Sure, sometimes an auto-success is the right way to go, like when the guy with Research-24 wants to know the phone number of a taxi company, but then you just don't roll

Of course, for a rule like that to be viable, you need to have such options available.

Incidentally, I think GURPS does a great job at RoF mechanics at SS/Semi/Full Bursts: A weapon has two stats, RoF and Recoil. Unless marked as RoF!, a gun can fire up to RoF bullets per attack, gaining bonuses to hit with increasing amount of bullets. RoF! means that it cannot fire less bullets, this is for some guns with fixed burst sizes or particularly high cyclical rates.
So the higher the amount of bullets, the easier to hit. This would be too good, if not for Recoil. You don't get an extra hit per DoS, you get extra hits per multiple of DoS: So with Rcl 3 you get one hit for the success, and then another if you pass by 3, by 6, etc.

So guns with really high RoFs tend to having higher Rcl, and even with low Rcl you'll likely waste a lot of bullets. It's a great trade-off that allows for realistic-feeling RoFs (instead of 6 shots over 5s for an MG, you get things like 10/s). It even works for shotguns! These are noted as f.ex. 3x10: You can fire up to 3 shots, made up of 10 individual pellets.

Anyway, enough of that

I know what TB is supposed to represent; it's just not doing a good job at it imo. Rather than allowing a Space Marine - or anyone else - to better deal with injuries still suffered , it often prevents them outright, as if that autogun round in your example would ricochet off a character's skin, leaving nothing but a blue mark.

TB is used as a threshold for smallest injury worth tracking for that particular creature. Things like shooting a elephant with a .22LR or a cat scratching you pinky finger is not worth tracking. If you shot a space marine with an autogun and the bullet only pass through soft tissue without hitting anything vital it doesn't cause enough damage to be worth tracking.

The cats claw doesn't ricochet off your skin. It'll penetrate your skin and cause blood loss. Should it count as an "injury still suffered"? Maybe assign 3000 wounds to your pinky (1 wound = 1 mm3 of tissue) and measure the total blood loss in mm3. "The cat hits you for a total of 1D5 points tissue damage to your pinky and you'll lose 3 blood points/second for 1D5 seconds from your total pool of 5 000 000 blood points."

Bolt projectiles gain their velocity (and thus a good part of their kinetic energy, together with mass) not from how fast they leave the muzzle but from the miniature rocket that kicks in after it has left the barrel, whilst muzzle speed was said to be "low" (it has to be, given that Stalker silenced shells are subsonic). Besides, a bolt's raw damage should come from the explosive charge that detonates immediately after penetration - the kinetic energy of the round should only affect Pen.

Please explain how a bolt projectile can gain mass?

To be viable in cqb the bolts need to leave the barrel with high velocity. That's why they have a kicker charge and very high recoil. During boarding action normal fighting range is probably something like 0-5m.

A 0.75" projectile with high kinetic energy will cause a lot of soft tissue damage even if it doesn't explode (kraken AP bolts).

FFG's "Astartes calibre" bolts are pictured in the Deathwatch core rulebook; do they want to tell me that "civilian calibre" bolts (which have the same calibre as per their own background) are somehow even smaller?

It's easy to calculate the civilian/pink bolter ammo size. A Godwyn-De'az bolter weight 6kg and have a magazine size of 30 (BoM pg.114). A full magazine weight 10% of the weight of the weapon (DH core pg.142). That puts a full magazine at 0.6kg. That's only 25% of what a real life 30 shell 12 gauge shotgun mag would weight. Godwyn-De'az bolts are only quarter the size of a shotgun shell = ~18,5mm*20mm with a projectile weight of 8grams. (about the same weight as a 9mm pistol projectile).

We can even calculate the explosive force. 1kg explosives does 3d10 X damage (DH core pg.150). SAPHE ammunition contain ~5-15% explosive material. A Godwyn-De'az bolt contain ~0.001kg explosives and would do 3d10/1000 damage (0,003-0,03 wounds) from the explosion. A very impressive weapon!

And that's before we get to other weird stuff like Astartes plasma or flamers apparently burning a couple degrees hotter, too.

Space marines can carry heavier weapons and manage higher recoil. Larger weapons = more damage.

TB is used as a threshold for smallest injury worth tracking for that particular creature. Things like shooting a elephant with a .22LR or a cat scratching you pinky finger is not worth tracking. If you shot a space marine with an autogun and the bullet only pass through soft tissue without hitting anything vital it doesn't cause enough damage to be worth tracking.

The cats claw doesn't ricochet off your skin. It'll penetrate your skin and cause blood loss. Should it count as an "injury still suffered"? Maybe assign 3000 wounds to your pinky (1 wound = 1 mm3 of tissue) and measure the total blood loss in mm3. "The cat hits you for a total of 1D5 points tissue damage to your pinky and you'll lose 3 blood points/second for 1D5 seconds from your total pool of 5 000 000 blood points."

Apples and oranges. Are you really comparing a housecat's claw to sci-fi guns?

I'm not sure what they make 41st millennium autogun rounds of, but in GW's version of the setting, they are perfectly capable of injuring, incapacitating or killing even Space Marines. Whether one actually prefers this to FFG's version is, of course, a matter of preferences.

Please explain how a bolt projectile can gain mass?

By making it larger?

Actually, wait - I suppose we have a misunderstanding here. Perhaps I should have said that a projectile's kinetic damage is made up of , rather than it gaining its kinetic energy from these sources. Small difference, especially in the context, but it's certainly clearer this way.

To be viable in cqb the bolts need to leave the barrel with high velocity.

*shrug* Tell that to GW.

That being said, I have a theory that this oversized "secondary barrel" we see at the gun's front - you know, the one with the holes to the sides, is where the missile is supposed to ignite. Not sure how fast it could pick up speed, but then again, this is a sci-fi setting that features much weirder things, so I don't really have much of a problem with this bit.

It's easy to calculate the civilian/pink bolter ammo size. [...]

If you're going with FFG's numbers, sure. I don't see what this should add to the debate, though, given that these profiles are exactly what's being criticised. Personally, I would also refrain from attempting to shoehorn the weight of real life ammunition and explosives into a sci-fi setting with partially made-up materials, where gun weights and ammo count differ between the sources ( even between individual FFG sources ), and especially where an abstracted "ammo weight = 10% of gun" formula is supposed to apply to every ranged weapon in the galaxy, of any kind. Because this gets funny if applied to something like IH's three-shot Angelus bolter, or the many different lasguns that all use 60 round clips yet have different rifle weights.

Space marines can carry heavier weapons and manage higher recoil. Larger weapons = more damage.

Even going by FFG's numbers, a human heavy bolter is much heavier than a normal Astartes bolter, and its cal 1.00 rounds fired at a much higher rate very likely also lead to higher recoil. Yet either can obviously be carried by a single person even in this RPG. Yet for some strange reason, the "civilian" version still doesn't cause as much damage. In spite of being heavier. And firing larger rounds.

Gun weight also counters recoil, by the way - as per the laws of physics, heavier mass requires more force to be moved.

And this is before we factor in things such as recoil compensation technology (which already exists in our current world), or that as per the original fluff the 1st stage launch is really only intended to push the round out of the barrel.

Look, we're both right in the sense that there is no wrong answer here. I simply grew up with a different version of 40k, though even aside from my disappointed preference for consistency with the original material, I remain convinced that the current rules are harmful to the game environment. Look up all the many threads in the Dark Heresy and Deathwatch forums about GMs having trouble with their group because the excessive resilience leads to entire weapon groups becoming ridiculously non-threatening. You may think it's fun and "epic" to just walk through a hail of ineffectual bullets, but personally I'd find this boring after having done it once or twice - and I remain opposed to the Horde rules' magical damage increase on the basis of appreciation for consistency and a certain sense of realism. A gun shouldn't behave differently just because it is wielded in groups.

Ultimately, it was BI's/FFG's decision to deviate from the original material like this, and just like they had opted for this approach, they could easily backpedal on it - depending on the amount of criticism, which I've seen mounting, though the forum is of course no accurate indicator of what the target audience as a whole thinks.

Worst case, we'll always have houserules.