I dunno Lynata. The cores sell at a higher price point, and a lot of their content is reused. So... I guess the dismembered line originally had to do with the fact the DH1e system scales like a shattered crystal bowl full of nightmare.

But looking at the later 40K lines, Star Wars and DH2b, I have no doubt line fragmentation is one of those "Oh my god! I cannot believe we just randomly lucked into this idea! This is making us sooo much more money!" things.

- Mind these are RPGs we're talking about, so profits are probably not exactly amazing either way.

Also, don't mistake this for support of FFGs decision to dismember the poor system. I'm a customer, and no more loyal to them than they to me: not even the tiniest bit. In fact, if another company promised to unify the system if they could get a hold of the license, I would very seriously consider boycotting FFG.

Because as a gamer there's no sane argument for dismembering a game like FFG is doing, when launching a new edition. Indeed, doing the exact opposite is one of the best arguments there is for creating a new edition.

What do you mean by "dismembering a game"?

What do you mean by "dismembering a game"?

I mean the 40K lines are disparate parts of something that should be whole, or at the very least not in disparate parts. Or if you prefer: the game has been hacked into pieces, and that is a bad thing.

In that case I take issue with your statement "there's no sane argument for dismembering a game like FFG is doing". Here are several:

1) Money. Multiple core books released over several years will generate more income than one, even if the one has more supplement books for it.

2) Specialization. A game focused on doing one thing very well will do it better than a game attempting multiple opposed styles of play. DH focused on investigation, RT on adventuring, DW and OW on combat, and so on. D&D is a great example of this - it does tactical combat very well; it doesn't do much else that well. A game like Gumshoe is sort of the opposite.

3) System Integrity: The d100 has some problems with scaling. Every system released has had some problem with it (Unnatural Characteristics come to mind in all of their forms). A system that attempted to include unmodified, normal humans with the genetically engineered bionic super soldiers that are the Emperor's angels as viable player characters will strain the math to one of two results: the gulf between those two will not actually be that wide, or they will attempt to keep it wide leading to some extreme system weirdness.

But looking at the later 40K lines, Star Wars and DH2b, I have no doubt line fragmentation is one of those "Oh my god! I cannot believe we just randomly lucked into this idea! This is making us sooo much more money!" things.

Yeah, I can't exactly shake this feeling myself. Let's just say I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

2) Specialization. A game focused on doing one thing very well will do it better than a game attempting multiple opposed styles of play. DH focused on investigation, RT on adventuring, DW and OW on combat, and so on. D&D is a great example of this - it does tactical combat very well; it doesn't do much else that well. A game like Gumshoe is sort of the opposite.

I don't think this would be impossible in a unified ruleset. Let's look at the books and ask ourselves: what is it that makes DH do better at investigation, etc? It's not the basic rules, because those are largely identical between the games. From where I sit, it's just a bunch of extra rules tacked onto the basic system that could be released as optional add-on supplements (with the core rulebook having a short and easy to use bare-bones version of them, but largely focusing on combat as the one thing that is present in all play styles) without any problem. In fact, this could even lead to an easier way into the system, by confronting people with a less complex version of what they can get into if they want to expand their collection of books that way.

Less repetition would mean fewer books would have to be purchased, which could make the system attractive for people with smaller income, which would mean more player and more word-of-mouth. Whether or not this would actually be more profitable for FFG is, of course, another matter.

3) System Integrity: The d100 has some problems with scaling. Every system released has had some problem with it (Unnatural Characteristics come to mind in all of their forms). A system that attempted to include unmodified, normal humans with the genetically engineered bionic super soldiers that are the Emperor's angels as viable player characters will strain the math to one of two results: the gulf between those two will not actually be that wide, or they will attempt to keep it wide leading to some extreme system weirdness.

This, too, is not unsolveable. I still believe the basic system is sound, it just wasn't wielded the right way. Get rid of Unnaturals and make gaps and advancement a bit smaller, more in line with the original tabletop. The "gulf not being that wide" is, to me, quite intentional. Do we want to play Movie Marines, or something that actually fits in with the setting as a whole? Matter of preferences.

The old system's main problem was that, apparently, at some point they had a good idea of how the d100 scale should be applied - the DH core rulebook had a chart with examples for each "tier" of characteristics, and as basic as it was, it seemed to feature some good examples and provided a good overview of how the universe works.

It was just thrown out of the window as the power creep began.

Go back to this chart (or make an improved one that sticks to the principles but addresses possible oddities), and then stick to it. Suddenly, d100 works.

In that case I take issue with your statement "there's no sane argument for dismembering a game like FFG is doing". Here are several:

1) Money. Multiple core books released over several years will generate more income than one, even if the one has more supplement books for it.

2) Specialization. A game focused on doing one thing very well will do it better than a game attempting multiple opposed styles of play. DH focused on investigation, RT on adventuring, DW and OW on combat, and so on. D&D is a great example of this - it does tactical combat very well; it doesn't do much else that well. A game like Gumshoe is sort of the opposite.

You say "opposed styles of play", but there is no inherent oppositive style of play in a roleplaying context, not any mutually exclusive or conflicting circumstances that would mean that a "specialized" ruleset would in any way be superior to a generalized one. If you have any evidence for this, please present it, because in the context of which we are talking, the "makes sense" cop-out of "A game focused on doing one thing very well will do it better than a game attempting multiple opposed styles of play." is rubbish.

3) System Integrity: The d100 has some problems with scaling. Every system released has had some problem with it (Unnatural Characteristics come to mind in all of their forms). A system that attempted to include unmodified, normal humans with the genetically engineered bionic super soldiers that are the Emperor's angels as viable player characters will strain the math to one of two results: the gulf between those two will not actually be that wide, or they will attempt to keep it wide leading to some extreme system weirdness.

There are no technical imposed limits inherent to the 1d100 system. Modifiers, wherever they come from, is the name of the game, to properly depict the galactic multitude.

In that case I take issue with your statement "there's no sane argument for dismembering a game like FFG is doing". Here are several:

1) Money. Multiple core books released over several years will generate more income than one, even if the one has more supplement books for it.

Any evidence whatsoever to support this? Also, publishing new core books under the same unified system, continuously updating the system in the same manner which have already been done is entirely within the realm of possibility.

2) Specialization. A game focused on doing one thing very well will do it better than a game attempting multiple opposed styles of play. DH focused on investigation, RT on adventuring, DW and OW on combat, and so on. D&D is a great example of this - it does tactical combat very well; it doesn't do much else that well. A game like Gumshoe is sort of the opposite.

Untrue. Case in point: The current WH40kRP system, which operates largely under the same general ruleset. Any overarching ruleset is a composite of smaller rules that is contextually fitting. For example, just because you have one Unified Ruleset does not mean that you can not have multiple ways to acquire gear, as showcased with Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, Black Crusade or Only War.

You say "opposed styles of play", but there is no inherent oppositive style of play in a roleplaying context, not any mutually exclusive or conflicting circumstances that would mean that a "specialized" ruleset would in any way be superior to a generalized one. If you have any evidence for this, please present it, because in the context of which we are talking, the "makes sense" cop-out of "A game focused on doing one thing very well will do it better than a game attempting multiple opposed styles of play." is rubbish.

The 40k games we've seen have all provided frameworks with differing emphasis on each element, though whether this is done with a mechanical framework or with an assumed style of play is another matter. It's hard to do an investigative game in OW due to the assumptions about setting baked into the rules, for example.

I'm not saying I'm 100% correct on this, but it is an argument to be made against some unified ruleset. I'm not convinced a game built to do everything would do every aspect of gameplay better than a ruleset developed specifically for it.

3) System Integrity: The d100 has some problems with scaling. Every system released has had some problem with it (Unnatural Characteristics come to mind in all of their forms). A system that attempted to include unmodified, normal humans with the genetically engineered bionic super soldiers that are the Emperor's angels as viable player characters will strain the math to one of two results: the gulf between those two will not actually be that wide, or they will attempt to keep it wide leading to some extreme system weirdness.

Simply untrue. Learn to use modifiers. Unnatural Characteristics and the like isn't an issue, but a necessity to properly convey the relative power levels. You might just as well argue that Multiple Arms only exists to simulate the fact that some creatures have multiple limbs. Well duh.

There are no technical imposed limits inherent to the 1d100 system. Modifiers, wherever they come from, is the name of the game, to properly depict the galactic multitude.

The part I've bolded is exactly right. Unnatural Characteristics were an attempt at solving the problem of "How do you make a character better at something without necessarily improving their odds of rolling a success?" That right there is an issue in the d100 system. If you boost a stat, the character becomes more likely to succeed, which may not be what you want.

This becomes a problem when you need to develop a system where players can be normal humans or inhuman supersoldiers. How do you make the math of the system work such that you can provide enemies that will prove difficult to each type? That's a very hard problem to solve.

By contrast, a system that specifically dealt with a given power level (normal humans, in the case of DH), you've got a lot more leeway to make the math work.

Again, I'm not saying I'm 100% right here. Simsum said there are no sane arguments against a unified system. I've presented several. I'm not saying they can't be solved. I am saying they would need to be addressed, which I haven't seen.

Holy wall of text, Batman.

Simsum said there are no sane arguments against a unified system.

Wait, I'm fairly sure Simsum didn't say that at all. You must have taken that out of context. Let me check...

Because as a gamer there's no sane argument for dismembering a game like FFG is doing, when launching a new edition

Oh.. So you didn't quote-mine me into saying something completely different from what I meant. You made up something and attributed it to me. Well, thanks for that. But it's totally OK with me if you don't do that again.

As for your three points of argument... I made the first one in a post you quoted, and in the same post acknowledged that the system has severe scaling issues. So.. Uhm...

Yeah, unless you're going to share your drugs, I'm bowing out of this.. Thread. It's just too **** weird for me.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I didn't intend to quote-mine or take anything out of context. Honestly I've really just been skimming this thread, but the majority opinion seems to be in favor of a unified system, an opinion I don't share. And to be fair, the paragraph containing your sentence in question doesn't parse.

Unnatural Characteristics were an attempt at solving the problem of "How do you make a character better at something without necessarily improving their odds of rolling a success?" That right there is an issue in the d100 system. If you boost a stat, the character becomes more likely to succeed, which may not be what you want.

This becomes a problem when you need to develop a system where players can be normal humans or inhuman supersoldiers. How do you make the math of the system work such that you can provide enemies that will prove difficult to each type? That's a very hard problem to solve.

Specialisations and smaller gaps. Every player needs to feel their character is useful, and by adhering to certain aspects of the source material you simultaneously achieve a better balance. This is not exactly a hard problem if you keep in mind that the groundwork to this was already achieved once - in GW's own Inquisitor RPG (if you dismiss its borked healing mechanic).

This goes back to my constant nagging about Toughness as stacking "skin armour", a problem which - or so I've been told - already existed in WFRP, the predecessor to Dark Heresy, and which for some unfathomable reason has been kept 'till this very day. You don't even need Space Marines to notice the problem with TB; a high level DH group can be problematic enough once characters start racking up a damage soak of 10 points or higher.

Changing the entire concept of dealing with wounds from "does my character suffer an injury?" to "how does my character deal with injuries that are still suffered" would go a long way, if not all the way, to deal with the extreme gap we witness right now.

For those people who don't like how it's done in Inquisitor (TB = soak between crit levels, you suffer at least 1 level of injury if an attack goes through your armour), there is also the alternative of just giving tougher characters more hitpoints, like it is still standard in the majority of systems out there. Certainly this is a better representation than conferring full-on immunity, only to then compromise that by magically making weapons more dangerous if you fire them in a group instead of one after another?

Next step, give everyone the same weapons and witness how people can suddenly be equally useful in ranged combat - with the more resilient and/or stronger characters (or those that prefer not being hit at all) dominating the melee in the middle of the firefight - like they are rightfully supposed to. Lots of potential for group synergy here!

I also maintain that Unnaturals were a bad solution for the issue you mentioned, especially the crazy multipliers that would incrementally increase the gap between characters the higher you go. There are better ways to solve the problem. Modifiers have been mention, but you could also just increase the stat itself whilst decreasing the gaps between characters and advancements in order to compensate. For example, you could have normal humans start at Strength 30 and allow them to raise this stat 5 times with a +3 each, capping out at 45. The 5th advancement would be Ascension level. Then, you have Space Marines start at Strength 50, but their advancements only add +2 (because the human body can only be improved so much - call it "diminishing returns"), having them reach cap at 60.

Doesn't this sound like it would work with a d100 system?

"I also maintain that Unnatural [Characteristics] were a bad solution for the issue you mentioned, especially the crazy multipliers that would incrementally increase the gap between characters the higher you go. There are better ways to solve the problem. Modifiers have been mentioned, but you could also just increase the stat itself whilst decreasing the gaps between characters and advancements in order to compensate. For example, you could have normal humans start at Strength 30 and allow them to raise this stat 5 times with a +3 each, capping out at 45. The 5th advancement would be Ascension level. Then, you have Space Marines start at Strength 50, but their advancements only add +2 (because the human body can only be improved so much - call it "diminishing returns"), having them reach cap at 60.

Doesn't this sound like it would work with a d100 system? " ~ Lynata

Yes, and very closely resembles what I've been working with- starting (Human) Characteristics of 2d10+27, with minor +/- modifiers for Homeworld/Background, two Advances per Characteristic at +3 each, and nicked the "insight" mechanic from HarnMaster which allows for tiny (+1) increases to Characteristics (gained through Skill use, max increase of +1 per Characteristic per game session). Human Characteristic maximums are capped at 55, but getting there definitely won't be easy, and staying there will be even more difficult. I've been using an Inquisitor-esque Injury mechanic combined with Temporary Characteristic Damage [TCD]- Healing (aka Medicae) improves Injury Status, but Recovery (recovering [TCD] loss that resulted from Injury effects) requires significant downtime and the expenditure of XP. Characteristics cannot be advanced until a PC has achieved full Recovery from Injury effects.

I've essentially reworked the entire CharGen and Advancement (XP costs) mechanics, as well as the amount and method of XP awarded.

What I've then done is reworked Skill advancements in the same manner; ie: a Skill may be advanced up to four times, each advance being +3 so a PC might have a Ranged Combat score of 46 (9 away from max) but have a Skill bonus of +9 when using weapon X because he/she specifically spent XP on increasing that Skill. Character development in general is far more open, allowing Players to customize their PCs. You want to play a "sniper"? Put a majority of your XP into Ranged Combat and Perception, a bit into Agility (for things like Stealth), and the rest toward role-specific Skills/Talents of your choice . You want to play a non-com archivist? Put a majority of your XP into Intelligence and Perception, a bit into Willpower (to resist the temptations of proscribed writings), and the remainder into Lore-related Skills and Talents. No development "trees", the only (significant) limit within this system is juggling XP- do you want to take that last Advance in Toughness, or do you want to learn a new Toughness-based Talent?

I've been running "white room" play-tests for about a month- still working out the snags, but overall very smooth game play, and allows for much better scaling between Humans, Ogryn, Astartes, Wraith Guard, and Minor Daemons, all without the use of Unnatural Characteristics of either ilk.

There's no way a unified system would work with either the system as it currently is, or a moderately modified system. It would require extensive re-writing of the rules, across all aspects. Then there'd be an inordinate amount of testing to ensure everything works properly and scales well. It's probably more effort than FFG's willing to dedicate for a system that may or may not be more profitable than what they've currently got - not to mention the costs involved in developing such a game.

I would like a core rule book.

In my mind it would have the following sections.

01 Game Dice

02 Characteristics

03 Tests

04 Fate

05 Movement

06 Combat (actions etc)

07 The Attack (rolling to hit etc)

08 Injury (Damage and damage effects)

09 Gamesmaster (Role of GM, Basics, Rewarding XP and Fate)

10 Interaction (Using interaction skills)

11 Fear

12 Insanity

13 Corruption

14 Skills

15 Talents

16 Traits

17 Psychic Powers

18 Weapons (Weapon Qualities, Craftmanship, and a limited example set of iconic weapons)

19 Vehicles (Types, Speed, Traits, Actions etc)

Leave character creation, XP spending, income/acquisition, mission type rules, equipment and vehicles to the Setting Modules (working title) like Dark Heresy, and Only War.

I would like a core rule book.

In my mind it would have the following sections.

01 Game Dice

02 Characteristics

03 Tests

04 Fate

05 Movement

06 Combat (actions etc)

07 The Attack (rolling to hit etc)

08 Injury (Damage and damage effects)

09 Gamesmaster (Role of GM, Basics, Rewarding XP and Fate)

10 Interaction (Using interaction skills)

11 Fear

12 Insanity

13 Corruption

14 Skills

15 Talents

16 Traits

17 Psychic Powers

18 Weapons (Weapon Qualities, Craftmanship, and a limited example set of iconic weapons)

19 Vehicles (Types, Speed, Traits, Actions etc)

Leave character creation, XP spending, income/acquisition, mission type rules, equipment and vehicles to the Setting Modules (working title) like Dark Heresy, and Only War.

I'm going to nick this, if you don't mind?

Of all things, a focused agenda is not one I relished preparing, and you've quite nicely done the work for me.

There's no way a unified system would work with either the system as it currently is, or a moderately modified system. It would require extensive re-writing of the rules, across all aspects. Then there'd be an inordinate amount of testing to ensure everything works properly and scales well. It's probably more effort than FFG's willing to dedicate for a system that may or may not be more profitable than what they've currently got - not to mention the costs involved in developing such a game.

I'm kinda wondering how you reached that conclusion. The differences between lines are mostly cosmetic anyway, BC already pulls off "mixed parties" of human & SM without too much hassle, and RT has several types of playable xenos. Between BC and OW, there's a lot of psychic powers available that work on exactly the same system.

Putting all that together doesn't take much skill, just patience. Deathwatch is the most problematic one, due to reasons I have trouble expressing in written form (but mostly it's got something to do with all numeric values in that game being bloated unnecessarily), but even there the necessary changes are quite banal to implement, just especially tiresome.

I'd have the unified system done long ago if I wasn't chronically lazy with writing such things down. As it stands, I'm using an unpolished outline floating somewhere in my brain, and it's yet to let me down in any way.

Simply untrue. Learn to use modifiers. Unnatural Characteristics and the like isn't an issue, but a necessity to properly convey the relative power levels. You might just as well argue that Multiple Arms only exists to simulate the fact that some creatures have multiple limbs. Well duh.

There are no technical imposed limits inherent to the 1d100 system. Modifiers, wherever they come from, is the name of the game, to properly depict the galactic multitude.

I understand how modifiers work, thank you.

The part I've bolded is exactly right. Unnatural Characteristics were an attempt at solving the problem of "How do you make a character better at something without necessarily improving their odds of rolling a success?" That right there is an issue in the d100 system. If you boost a stat, the character becomes more likely to succeed, which may not be what you want.

This becomes a problem when you need to develop a system where players can be normal humans or inhuman supersoldiers. How do you make the math of the system work such that you can provide enemies that will prove difficult to each type? That's a very hard problem to solve.

By contrast, a system that specifically dealt with a given power level (normal humans, in the case of DH), you've got a lot more leeway to make the math work.

Again, I'm not saying I'm 100% right here. Simsum said there are no sane arguments against a unified system. I've presented several. I'm not saying they can't be solved. I am saying they would need to be addressed, which I haven't seen.

Holy wall of text, Batman.

I am also of the opinion that the unnatural characteristic system is flawed. What I do not understand is why everybody thinks that the system is broken without them.

cite from above: ""The part I've bolded is exactly right. Unnatural Characteristics were an attempt at solving the problem of "How do you make a character better at something without necessarily improving their odds of rolling a success?" That right there is an issue in the d100 system . If you boost a stat, the character becomes more likely to succeed, which may not be what you want .""

I don't get it. Why should a Character with higher stats not be more likely to succeed? or Why would you not want that?

I run a mixed BC group consisting of Chaos Space Marines and humans and I really would see no problem with Astartes Stats >100.

I mean, yeah they are superhuman so what? That is what modifiers are in for. A superhuman character can deal with +/- 60 modifiers while a normal human can't. But that's the point of playing for example Space Marines after all or am I wrong?

A >100 stat just means that you can deal with heavy modifiers. So if a character, not regarding their "race" has a modified roll value of >99 than he automatically succeeds without rolling while if he has <1 he automatically fails without rolling.

Through that you naturally end up with rolling for epic tests for space marines while ignoring non epic.

Sense.

Pie in the sky.

These two posts next to each other are great. Tygre's post reads like someone trying to design a plane having only ever seen one with no idea how they work. "It's a big tube shape, with two wings in the middle with wheely feet coming out of them. And a wheely foot in the front, and a fin on the back. That should do it!"

Actually it reads like someone who looked at the design specifications and designed to it. I went through My rulebooks and noted the areas which are actually core to the game. Until DH 2.0 those sections haven't changed much, with Psychic powers being the exception. And even then some sections are still very similar.

Whether it could be practically done and whether it is financially feasible are actually two different arguements. As most people have used house rules and common sense to mix the lines anyway, it is doable. As to the financial feasibility I will leave that to FFG.

I don't get it. Why should a Character with higher stats not be more likely to succeed? or Why would you not want that?

I run a mixed BC group consisting of Chaos Space Marines and humans and I really would see no problem with Astartes Stats >100.

I mean, yeah they are superhuman so what? That is what modifiers are in for. A superhuman character can deal with +/- 60 modifiers while a normal human can't. But that's the point of playing for example Space Marines after all or am I wrong?

Technically I'd agree there (which is why I almost responded to that part as well), though I would caution against such a massive gap as you seem to suggest. From the sound of it, your BC group has no non-CSM combat characters? If so, I suppose it might work out, but I'm sure we can all see the potential issues when you have combat-focused characters featuring a difference in stats that, for one character, confers auto-successes at tasks the other would find struggling or nigh-impossible.

Of course this is partially a question of how you interpret the awesomeness of superhuman Space Marines, as there are massive differences regarding their portrayal between the original material and certain novels (the same could be said for other characters, but their novels and studio fluff are probably much less popular/known) leading to many different interpretations - but whenever mixed groups are concerned, I would recommend against "Movie Marines" not only as a matter of personal preferences but also a modicum of balancing, and to avoid letting other combatants feel useless. I'm sure the last thing a group wants is a Mary Sue'ish Superman constantly outshining everyone else - at the very least where people's specialisations are concerned, given that their character defines themselves by what they do and on what they focus.

Space Marines are no better at wielding a gun or a sword, at noticing threats or coming up with tactics than other veteran warriors - but they are stronger and tougher. How much? This detail is up to everyone's interpretation.

I don't get it. Why should a Character with higher stats not be more likely to succeed? or Why would you not want that?

I run a mixed BC group consisting of Chaos Space Marines and humans and I really would see no problem with Astartes Stats >100.

I mean, yeah they are superhuman so what? That is what modifiers are in for. A superhuman character can deal with +/- 60 modifiers while a normal human can't. But that's the point of playing for example Space Marines after all or am I wrong?

Technically I'd agree there (which is why I almost responded to that part as well), though I would caution against such a massive gap as you seem to suggest. From the sound of it, your BC group has no non-CSM combat characters? If so, I suppose it might work out, but I'm sure we can all see the potential issues when you have combat-focused characters featuring a difference in stats that, for one character, confers auto-successes at tasks the other would find struggling or nigh-impossible.

Of course this is partially a question of how you interpret the awesomeness of superhuman Space Marines, as there are massive differences regarding their portrayal between the original material and certain novels (the same could be said for other characters, but their novels and studio fluff are probably much less popular/known) leading to many different interpretations - but whenever mixed groups are concerned, I would recommend against "Movie Marines" not only as a matter of personal preferences but also a modicum of balancing, and to avoid letting other combatants feel useless. I'm sure the last thing a group wants is a Mary Sue'ish Superman constantly outshining everyone else - at the very least where people's specialisations are concerned, given that their character defines themselves by what they do and on what they focus.

Space Marines are no better at wielding a gun or a sword, at noticing threats or coming up with tactics than other veteran warriors - but they are stronger and tougher. How much? This detail is up to everyone's interpretation.

That's a completely separate argument, though.

A unified system doesn't mean "a system in which you can make any character and have it be balanced with every other character". If a group decides to include Space Marines and Grots side-by-side, that's not the system's problem.

A unified system should allow the different races to exist in the same game. It shouldn't attempt to balance them - they're purposefully unbalanced. The system would ideally include rules to help the players balance different characters (like GURPS does, with "experience costs" for race packages), but that's a nice-to-have extra.

I don't get it. Why should a Character with higher stats not be more likely to succeed? or Why would you not want that?

I run a mixed BC group consisting of Chaos Space Marines and humans and I really would see no problem with Astartes Stats >100.

I mean, yeah they are superhuman so what? That is what modifiers are in for. A superhuman character can deal with +/- 60 modifiers while a normal human can't. But that's the point of playing for example Space Marines after all or am I wrong?

Technically I'd agree there (which is why I almost responded to that part as well), though I would caution against such a massive gap as you seem to suggest. From the sound of it, your BC group has no non-CSM combat characters? If so, I suppose it might work out, but I'm sure we can all see the potential issues when you have combat-focused characters featuring a difference in stats that, for one character, confers auto-successes at tasks the other would find struggling or nigh-impossible.

Of course this is partially a question of how you interpret the awesomeness of superhuman Space Marines, as there are massive differences regarding their portrayal between the original material and certain novels (the same could be said for other characters, but their novels and studio fluff are probably much less popular/known) leading to many different interpretations - but whenever mixed groups are concerned, I would recommend against "Movie Marines" not only as a matter of personal preferences but also a modicum of balancing, and to avoid letting other combatants feel useless. I'm sure the last thing a group wants is a Mary Sue'ish Superman constantly outshining everyone else - at the very least where people's specialisations are concerned, given that their character defines themselves by what they do and on what they focus.

Space Marines are no better at wielding a gun or a sword, at noticing threats or coming up with tactics than other veteran warriors - but they are stronger and tougher. How much? This detail is up to everyone's interpretation.

Well Space Marines were just an example for superhuman or power gap. Superhuman with +100 stats could also be advanced throne agents, Daemon Princes, etc... (I am also more a fan of portraying SM table top strength as opposition to movie marines )

My example was also more intended for non combat skills.

If it comes to combat than yeah, it can become very deadly for non superhuman.

In my BC group I use a combination of Horde Rules and Aggression Management.But in the end its the grim "reality" of the 40k world. If a single standard human gets caught in a horde melee or in a battle between space marines he ends being pulped.

But balancing combat is another topic. If the enemies have a certain power level I would not dumb them down for the weak characters in a group. ( Like: ok the gene stealers going for the Astartes have the following stats and these going against the human adepts are another strain of weaker gene stealers - that's just dumb. )

If characters are too weak they should take cover and attack range, or get as strong as the others (there are possibilities like gear, mutation, cybernetics) If they are weak in body but strong in mind they should get followers like true cult leaders using their social and intelligence skills and charge with them into melee. (Most human heretics should have a surrounding group of followers like cultists, servitors or something anyway.)

Combat in mixed groups is a challenge for GMs and players alike. It needs experience, preparation and arrangement with the players. But done right it is very rewarding for advanced 40k role-players. If someone does not like this he should maybe not play a "mixed" group.

Anyways it is no argument against a universal system or for situational dumbing down of encounters.

I am also of the opinion that the unnatural characteristic system is flawed. What I do not understand is why everybody thinks that the system is broken without them.

cite from above: ""The part I've bolded is exactly right. Unnatural Characteristics were an attempt at solving the problem of "How do you make a character better at something without necessarily improving their odds of rolling a success?" That right there is an issue in the d100 system . If you boost a stat, the character becomes more likely to succeed, which may not be what you want .""

I don't get it. Why should a Character with higher stats not be more likely to succeed? or Why would you not want that?

I run a mixed BC group consisting of Chaos Space Marines and humans and I really would see no problem with Astartes Stats >100.

I mean, yeah they are superhuman so what? That is what modifiers are in for. A superhuman character can deal with +/- 60 modifiers while a normal human can't. But that's the point of playing for example Space Marines after all or am I wrong?

A >100 stat just means that you can deal with heavy modifiers. So if a character, not regarding their "race" has a modified roll value of >99 than he automatically succeeds without rolling while if he has <1 he automatically fails without rolling.

Through that you naturally end up with rolling for epic tests for space marines while ignoring non epic.

So, to represent one character being better at something, unnatural characteristics were invented - conferring a benefit to rolls involving that characteristic without changing the chance of success . A workaround for a kink in the d100 system.

This works (more or less) when the numbers all within some sane range in respect to the power level of the system, but starts to break down when power levels range from puny human to creatures space marines have a hard time with.

As MaliciousOnion said, any attempt at representing all of the power levels represented in the various games would have to completely rework the math of the system, and that's a monumental task. It's not enough to say, "oh well we'll just have advances in increments of 2/3 and do this thing for unnaturals." You actually have to sit down and work out the math for the system and what repercussions your choices will have, because often they aren't immediately obvious.

To MagnusPhil's point about groups mixing grots and marines, that is entirely beside the point. Even if the group was all one or the other, the system would have to be built to represent grots and marines. That is the issue.

That's a completely separate argument, though.

A unified system doesn't mean "a system in which you can make any character and have it be balanced with every other character". If a group decides to include Space Marines and Grots side-by-side, that's not the system's problem.

A unified system should allow the different races to exist in the same game. It shouldn't attempt to balance them - they're purposefully unbalanced. The system would ideally include rules to help the players balance different characters (like GURPS does, with "experience costs" for race packages), but that's a nice-to-have extra.

Some characters have a certain "minimum of superiority" that comes essential with their background, and this needs to be catered to. Anything above this minimum, however, just means intentionally sabotaging everyone elses fun - especially when it can be argued that other characters should share this level of superiority. As previously hinted at, Space Marines do not have an implant that inherently makes them better shooters or swordfighters. They die to bolter rounds and even las weapons like everyone else - at least in GW's material. You just need to hit them a couple more times.

Well Space Marines were just an example for superhuman or power gap. Superhuman with +100 stats could also be advanced throne agents, Daemon Princes, etc... (I am also more a fan of portraying SM table top strength as opposition to movie marines )

Oh. Hmm ... I dunno, I'd rather keep superhuge modifiers and gigantic stats out of the game. But it depends on the specific task at hand - certainly there are some things where certain characters should auto-succeed and some things that are impossible to others, but I'd definitively prefer if those would remain exceptions. The odd case of lifting a car or something.

Come to think of it, it's probably not so problematic, given that Marines should only have a high strength and toughness, and these attributes do not seem to be tested very often. Do we have examples for the other characteristics? Like daemons having a willpower of 100 in the core rulebook. But what about the rest?

But balancing combat is another topic. If the enemies have a certain power level I would not dumb them down for the weak characters in a group. ( Like: ok the gene stealers going for the Astartes have the following stats and these going against the human adepts are another strain of weaker gene stealers - that's just dumb. )

If characters are too weak they should take cover and attack range, or get as strong as the others (there are possibilities like gear, mutation, cybernetics) If they are weak in body but strong in mind they should get followers like true cult leaders using their social and intelligence skills and charge with them into melee. (Most human heretics should have a surrounding group of followers like cultists, servitors or something anyway.)

Agreed. I've never been a fan of this "railroading combat" that has one type of enemy only going against character X whilst another type of enemies is focusing on Y that is often suggested whenever a GM reports trouble with mixed groups.