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.

You might notice that I prefaced my post by saying that Lynata's argument, which is what I commented on, was missing the point. Which, inherently, makes me "miss the point" as well.

I'm not saying that the system as-is would work for it. I'm saying that mixed groups isn't something that the system must cater to. Grots do not need to be as good as Space Marines.

That said, I don't necessarily think this is a problem in a d100 system, and I think I disagree that the system would need to be remade from the ground up. I've yet to see a compelling argument either way, and so I don't have a set opinion.

I don't think this is a separate argument at all. There is a difference between being "better" at something, and between completely dominating entire segments of gameplay.

And a unified system should at least attempt to offer all characters a chance to be useful. Like "Inquisitor" did. I see no need to artificially inflate the gap between characters more than absolutely necessary, especially when this hampers group synergy.

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.

The different races are not so unbalanced as you seem to imply. A gun makes a wonderful "threat equalizer" in 40k, at least as long as you are not going FFG's route and give Astartes +1 gear because they are not yet awesome enough.

And if you feel like pulling comparisons, perhaps look for better ones than Grots, who would have trouble keeping up with normal humans. Like, maybe look at mixed groups like they actually exist in GW's fluff. After all, isn't this what this is all about?

...

Comparing lowly Grots to Space Marines was exactly the point - finding a huge divide. We could say Grots and Greater Daemons, if further hyperbole better conveys the idea.

The point is, a universal system should be just that: Universal. It should be a sandbox in which you can build whichever 40k RPG you want. I should be able to play a Grot's Journey to Nobdom, or I should be able to play out the internal power struggles of greater daemons.

Trying to make a party inherently balanced in such a system is impossible. Or at least it would suck so much flavour out of the world that there'd be no point.

The system should absolutely not "try and make an effort to make everyone feel useful". That's the GMs job. If you, as a GM, allow 1 player to be a Space Marine while everyone else is a Hive Dreg, you're a terrible GM. You can help this by giving the Dregs some starting XP (for which a guide in the core book would be very useful), or some other advantage - but saying that the system should reward weak races for being weak is a terrible idea.

There's two arguments now (which is why I said your point was a separate one):

1) Whether or not the d100 system is at all capable of representing the vast power scale in the 40k universe.

2) Whether or not the above would be fun .

I think the first question is interesting. The second one less so, at least until the first is answered.

The point is, a universal system should be just that: Universal. It should be a sandbox in which you can build whichever 40k RPG you want. I should be able to play a Grot's Journey to Nobdom, or I should be able to play out the internal power struggles of greater daemons.

Trying to make a party inherently balanced in such a system is impossible. Or at least it would suck so much flavour out of the world that there'd be no point.

Then you have been missing my point, or I failed to convey my thoughts accurately. My argument is based on mixed parties as they regularly exist in GW's original material, for I believe we are all more inclined to play those things than "a Grot's journey to Nobdom" - or rather, if we would play the latter, then we'd all be playing Grots.

There is nothing wrong with differences in power. What is wrong would be to artificially inflate them beyond the minimum requirement, and this is an aspect of Universal Rules that would have to be taken into consideration.

At the end of the day, I'd just like a game that replicates GW's setting rather than someone's favourite novel (including plot-armour and protagonist bias).

At the end of the day, I'd just like a game that replicates GW's setting rather than someone's favourite novel (including plot-armour and protagonist bias).

(serious post)

An xp cost to play as an Ogrin or Space Marine would be a good start.

An xp cost to play as an Ogrin or Space Marine would be a good start.

Yes, for example. This could allow other characters to invest those XP (assuming they start with the same amount) into things that would hopefully make them feel more useful whilst remaining characterful. Perhaps another player rolls up an Inquisitor and invests into some good weapons to keep pace in terms of ranged fighting capability, whilst also not neglecting investigative skills. Or a player rolls up a veteran Imperial Guard Sergeant who "buys" a couple NPCs, so that whilst he alone can neither rival the Marine or the Inquisitor, he's got his own squad to combine his firepower with...

Just off the top of my head.

If one doesn't wish to use Unnaturals to represent SM abilities just convert from TT to percentile. This means a 'normal' human will have stats between 33-50 while a SM will have stats between 50-66. Bearing in mind that these are both examples of "normal" versions whereas heroes and individuals could be higher. If you use this method it is important to recognise that SM's DO have stats that are funtionally superior to the 'normal' guys across the board! just sayin...

An xp cost to play as an Ogrin or Space Marine would be a good start.

Yes, for example. This could allow other characters to invest those XP (assuming they start with the same amount) into things that would hopefully make them feel more useful whilst remaining characterful. Perhaps another player rolls up an Inquisitor and invests into some good weapons to keep pace in terms of ranged fighting capability, whilst also not neglecting investigative skills. Or a player rolls up a veteran Imperial Guard Sergeant who "buys" a couple NPCs, so that whilst he alone can neither rival the Marine or the Inquisitor, he's got his own squad to combine his firepower with...

Just off the top of my head.

I've been meaning to put together rules for something to represent an individuals power base, such as an Imperial guard regiment, a business or a spy network in a slightly less abstract way than the profit factor or influence since reading the rules for contacts.

The idea was to record and stat assets by their scale, purpose, effective skill level and any other relative traits (a 5 man data analysis team, a chaos cult, a trading space port and a crusade fleet are obviously completely different) in a way that let them be used to do what such a thing should be able to do.

I hope to some day get round to have an system that will allow using a asset to acquire stuff like information or equipment and also allow assets to attack and be damaged.

Finally Assets need to be able to generate smaller scale assets they contained (like an Imperial guard regiment generating a elite squad) to allow them to scale down when they need to. I still need to do real rules but feel free to steal the consept.

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 just wanted to point out that I think this is a terrible idea, forcing prospective players (ie. us) to buy a minimum of two books just to play the game. Even if the individual books are cheaper, even if they're packaged in a starter bundle, there's a chance you'll alienate new players through perceived complexity. Ideally, you either have each module stand on its own (much like the current games as a whole, except have them work together properly), or you have a base core rulebook that is playable on its own across a broad but shallow range of settings, then additional splatbooks delve down into finer detail (like any single current game).

Like cps says, it's not just a matter of fixing characteristics or psychic powers or advancement, etc. You need to make sure that every element works with every other element, for every possible scenario . It's not impossible, as I said, just very time- and resource-consuming. Which means FFG need to divert those resources from maintaining their current lines in order to create this hypothetical universal ruleset, and while they're doing that, they're not generating revenue from new products in the current lines.

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.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I don't think the system is broken without Unnatural Characteristics. However, the d100 has inherent limitations. One of those is that in order to make a character better at something by increasing their characteristics, you also make them more likely to succeed at it. This may not be what you want, because at the extremes the system starts to break down, where very high values confer an auto-success and low ones make it nigh impossible to succeed.

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.

No I think I totally get your point. I just think that the d100 system is not broken without Unnatural Characteristics. I also don't see limitations.

From my point of view it is totally fine if they become more successful % wise if they get better in doing something. I really don't get why you want people to be better at something while not having a higher base success rate?

I just think it is all about modifiers, so a characters with 120% in a skill (quite extreme I know, just as an example) would auto succeed in ordinary +10, challenging +0, or even a hard test -20. For him it becomes interesting from very hard -30till hellish -60 encounters. So epic character stats have to roll for epic tasks where they also can fail. So they can still fail but only at much tougher tasks.

I believe the problem is that many people are just not accustomed in using modifiers on a large scale. They seem to think that these are special circumstances and normal tests rolls should most often be done without modifiers.

I propose an alternative system: Just switch to opposed tests in general and you don't have problem anymore. Like: Ok, your Space Marine has a Strength of 90 and wants to press open that spaceship bulkhead with force. The door has a resistance value of 110. Both roll. The Marine has 4 degrees of success while the door had a bad roll and only 3. The Marine forces the door open.

Opposed tests are another possibility to circumvent the d100 barrier on high power levels if you do not like heavy modifiers proposed above. One way or another I don't see reason for unnatural characteristics.

Representing the power levels works ok for me at the moment. In BC you can play humans and Astartes and it works, even if it is much more of a challenge for the GM to build adventures which are still interesting for so different characters.

In my BC group we have 2 Astartes, 1 heavy bolter for range support, one Khorn Berserk for brutal melee. Then we have 2 humans, 1 Slaaneshian social silvertongue and mad 1 Heretek . Players really have to figure out their "role" and so their specialty in the group so everyone can have a field to shine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding mixed groups in general:

It is already pretty much a unified system but in the end it is all about the mixing of groups. Do Space Marines make sense in Acolyte Groups? Do Non-Astartes make sense in DW groups? Well I don't think so but in the end, every group has to decide for themselves.

Like mentioned before, even if all types are playable and portrayable within a system, not all combinations would be fun. I also don't think that all the different types of characters should be balanced against each other so they make sense in mixed groups. Doing this would end up with very deformed, trimmed down archetypes.

Variations in starting XP are a possibility as well as advanced gear like power amour or cybernetics but there are limits of reason to that.

An example are thinks like this group actions of DW only the Astartes could do, or fundamentally different physiologies.

An example was a thousand son sorcerer in our old BC group competing with a standard human sorcerer. The thousand son was not only nearly always the better psyker, he was in addition an Astartes in full gear. So this group composition did not really work out well. Making a 10.000 year old Astartes weaker would also make no sense while staying true with the fluff so the player switched character in the end. On the other hand, he maybe would have been a fitting group member in an advanced CSM only group.

I also dont see mixed groups apear in the novel fluff that often. But maybe I just did not read this books, dont know....

Like cps says, it's not just a matter of fixing characteristics or psychic powers or advancement, etc. You need to make sure that every element works with every other element, for every possible scenario . It's not impossible, as I said, just very time- and resource-consuming. Which means FFG need to divert those resources from maintaining their current lines in order to create this hypothetical universal ruleset, and while they're doing that, they're not generating revenue from new products in the current lines.

I'm really confused as to the difficulties you perceive.

I just wanted to point out that I think this is a terrible idea, forcing prospective players (ie. us) to buy a minimum of two books just to play the game. Even if the individual books are cheaper, even if they're packaged in a starter bundle, there's a chance you'll alienate new players through perceived complexity. Ideally, you either have each module stand on its own (much like the current games as a whole, except have them work together properly), or you have a base core rulebook that is playable on its own across a broad but shallow range of settings, then additional splatbooks delve down into finer detail (like any single current game).

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.

Like cps says, it's not just a matter of fixing characteristics or psychic powers or advancement, etc. You need to make sure that every element works with every other element, for every possible scenario . It's not impossible, as I said, just very time- and resource-consuming. Which means FFG need to divert those resources from maintaining their current lines in order to create this hypothetical universal ruleset, and while they're doing that, they're not generating revenue from new products in the current lines.

I do amit that it might not be a financially sound idea having a core rules. To do it properly you will need to start a 2nd Ed for all the lines (in my unqualified opinion). But I will leave that decision to FFG (it is their decision to make), I do not know enough about marketing to offer financial advice on a theorectical product. But I will offer my opinion on how you could do it on the off chance it is developed and becausing doing so can be fun. I would also like to point out that in old DnD you really needed 4 books (minimum), The Rule Book, The GM Book, the Players Book, and the Monster Manual.

My point in my earlier post was that first I like the idea and I even pointed out the areas which are actually core rules and which is setting specific.

After reading through the comments in this thread and with a lot of thought, I think that what is needed is not necessarily a core rule book but consistency between the 40KRP systems. Mainly in weapons, creatures, and unnatural characteristics.

To me this is, in a way, also a question of realism. Either you are better at something (which should confer higher success rates), or you are not.

It's the same reason for why I would just remove traits like "Bulging Biceps" and turn them into simple characteristics requirements.

Then it seems to work only because your humans have opted not to play combat-focused characters? That is, of course, one way to deal with the (imo unnecessarily huge) gap between the character types, but I find it a poor representation of the fluff, and very limiting to groups when you have the presence of Astartes automatically "locking" similar non-Marine characters just because they'd never be able to get out of the Marines' shadow. Your experience with the 1k Sons Psyker and the human Sorcerer seem to prove this.

Stopping to treat TB like stacking armour, and making the same kind of gear available to everyone, would go a long way of letting human characters feel more viable even when they have a similar focus as the Marines. The idea that the Inquisition has poorer wargear than the Astartes sounds like Opposite Day, and Guardsmen wielding "civilian" (rulebook quote!) plasma guns just tops it off.

Oh, I haven't read many novels either. Just GW's original material. In fact, mixed groups seem to be more common there, than in the novels that tend to focus on one specific organisation.

No, I am speaking of things like the alliance between Black Templars and Battle Sisters, or that the default leader of a Deathwatch squad is an Inquisitor. In fact, did you know that GW originally invented the Deathwatch because they were looking for ways to have individual Space Marines deploy alongside other humans?

I would also like to point out that in old DnD you really needed 4 books (minimum), The Rule Book, The GM Book, the Players Book, and the Monster Manual.

Bah, why should we need to look to D&D? Many (most?) games out there can be played perfectly just with their core rulebook. I've just gotten my hands on the new 5th edition Shadowrun for example. Green Ronin's Dragon Age is another one.

From my point of view it is totally fine if they become more successful % wise if they get better in doing something. I really don't get why you want people to be better at something while not having a higher base success rate?

To me this is, in a way, also a question of realism. Either you are better at something (which should confer higher success rates), or you are not.

It's the same reason for why I would just remove traits like "Bulging Biceps" and turn them into simple characteristics requirements.

Representing the power levels works ok for me at the moment. In BC you can play humans and Astartes and it works, even if it is much more of a challenge for the GM to build adventures which are still interesting for so different characters.

In my BC group we have 2 Astartes, 1 heavy bolter for range support, one Khorn Berserk for brutal melee. Then we have 2 humans, 1 Slaaneshian social silvertongue and mad 1 Heretek . Players really have to figure out their "role" and so their specialty in the group so everyone can have a field to shine.

Then it seems to work only because your humans have opted not to play combat-focused characters? That is, of course, one way to deal with the (imo unnecessarily huge) gap between the character types, but I find it a poor representation of the fluff, and very limiting to groups when you have the presence of Astartes automatically "locking" similar non-Marine characters just because they'd never be able to get out of the Marines' shadow. Your experience with the 1k Sons Psyker and the human Sorcerer seem to prove this.

Stopping to treat TB like stacking armour, and making the same kind of gear available to everyone, would go a long way of letting human characters feel more viable even when they have a similar focus as the Marines. The idea that the Inquisition has poorer wargear than the Astartes sounds like Opposite Day, and Guardsmen wielding "civilian" (rulebook quote!) plasma guns just tops it off.

Regarding mixed groups in general:

It is already pretty much a unified system but in the end it is all about the mixing of groups. Do Space Marines make sense in Acolyte Groups? Do Non-Astartes make sense in DW groups? Well I don't think so but in the end, every group has to decide for themselves.

[...]

I also dont see mixed groups apear in the novel fluff that often. But maybe I just did not read this books, dont know....

Oh, I haven't read many novels either. Just GW's original material. In fact, mixed groups seem to be more common there, than in the novels that tend to focus on one specific organisation.

No, I am speaking of things like the alliance between Black Templars and Battle Sisters, or that the default leader of a Deathwatch squad is an Inquisitor. In fact, did you know that GW originally invented the Deathwatch because they were looking for ways to have individual Space Marines deploy alongside other humans?

"When we were first discussing ideas to include in the sample characters for Inquisitor, the Grey Knight was the most obvious choice for a Space Marine character. It was partly for this reason that we decided to introduce something new instead, in the form of the Xenos Deathwatch."

- Gav Thorpe on Space Marines in "Inquisitor"

The background for Battle Brother Artemis also provides a good example of an Inquisitor operating alongside Marines, like how it is supposed to work in the original material.

What an irony that it was now a Deathwatch RPG that would broaden the gap between Marines and humans to such ridiculous levels that we even need special versions of creatures for the Astartes to fight, because the standard variant wouldn't be a challenge. Is this "two-class society" really a good realisation of the original material where such differences were not present nor needed?

I would also like to point out that in old DnD you really needed 4 books (minimum), The Rule Book, The GM Book, the Players Book, and the Monster Manual.

Bah, why should we need to look to D&D? Many (most?) games out there can be played perfectly just with their core rulebook. I've just gotten my hands on the new 5th edition Shadowrun for example. Green Ronin's Dragon Age is another one.

Well it is all about using roles. In good old DH 1.0 you also had non combat focused classes which are fun to play. So if you want a combat heavy character you go chaos space marines in mixed groups as you would choose guardsman or assassin in DH 1.0. Space Marines are in one on one always superior to un-augmented humans. As I mentioned before there are still possibilities to play humans as combat focused, using ranged weapons, augmentations and of course the most obvious but often overlooked possibility to play them as leaders of hordes/small armies/ cults etc.

Black Crusade is much more flexible than all the other 40krpg lines in regards of the setting. If Archetypes make sense in a group depends very much on the kind of campaign you intend to run!

So the question is: Open setting/Chaos setting or Imperial setting.

So filling the combat role within the group with a Space Marine makes sense if you want to play a warband which travels through the vortex, battling other war bands. But if you intend to play within an imperial sector as a background, like a hive world or similar, suddenly the human renegade becomes the ideal choice for the warrior role, because he can move unnoticed through the setting (a single sighting of a chaos space marine on a hive world would surely alarm the inquisition or worse, restricting heavily the capabilities of such an archetype)

So , as always: It depends. It comes down to what roles exist within a group. This was what happened when we had a thousand son sorcerer. Rule of thumb is that if one role is occupied by different characters it will diminish their gaming fun. If these are overlapping happen by Astartes or normal humans is only secondary. (Same problem with overlapping in combat I also encountered in an Ascension game without Astartes.)

The question if Astartes should be portrayed as demigods or just elite soldiers is as old as the first 40k novels. I think that there can be no answer which is satisfying for all fans. There can be no right or wrong in that. What I personally believe is that in the rpg there is a place for both of them because in the end the strength variation of Astartes between a novice scout and a Deathwatch Veteran Company Leader could be as big as between a lvl 1 Adept and an Officio Assassinorum member.

(Also we have to be aware that the marines portrayed in the DW rpg are already superior to normal Astarte if I am not mistaken.)

-----------------------

Thanks for the clue with the origin of mixed groups and DW btw. In a tabletop game it can make sense to play them together in a group cause you only portray specific situations like battles. These alliances exist during this "event" So an inquisitor calls for example a DW marine for aid for that specific task but I do not think that the marine lifes and travels together with the inquisitor for years and becomes part of his accompanying retinue. They are a resource to be called upon in specific situations, not an social interwoven part of an longstanding group. I think that DH 2.0 will do well portraying this with their Reinforcement system. ( maybe similar of how DW groups can call in a Dreadnought already under certain circumstances.)

"" A new Reinforcements system which allows players to temporarily call-in and play as high-level characters will be added."" Source: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4361

-----------------------

Another problem I would see in a unified system would be how character creation and advancement in the sense of skills and talents would work. Should they be part of the unified system or part of line setting books?

I would prefer to keep them line specific.

Where Space Marines should be superior is their strength and their resilience, that's it. They are "tanks" that cause a lot of damage when they hit in melee. Neither must this mean that they are superior in any other area, nor that they are unkillable by the very same weapons as the others (I think this is largely an issue of the injury system and TB as "skin armour"), nor that they have a higher or even equal chance of hitting their target than the best non-Astartes combat character (snipers and assassins spring to mind - and the former could easily outclass an average Space Marine in focused ranged damage, whereas the latter might outclass him not with melee damage, but with melee accuracy and not getting hit at all).

That's what I meant earlier with a certain "minimum awesomeness" of what could rightfully be expected from a character, and that there is no need to inflate it beyond this minimum, because doing so sacrifices an element of balance that does not need to be sacrificed.

Certainly, as you say, there are lots of interpretations of what Space Marines "should" be capable of doing. But if you are deliberately gunning for Movie Marines, then I have to say that it would indeed be better for everyone to keep them confined to their own little extra RPG like Deathwatch where they can be as epic as their players want.

Simultaneously, why is this argument being made only for Space Marines? For example, how do you think SoB players would feel, being told that their characters are "equals to their brother Space Marines" (GW website), that their arms and armour are "the equal of any Space Marine Chapter" (3E Codex), but confronted with the fact that Grey Knights in the Daemon Hammer book completely and utterly outshine anything a Sister could do, because the current system saw fit to create a gap that is much wider than the original material suggests?

In a game that allows people to pick multiple classes, think of everyone instead of catering to the posterboy. Giving everyone access to equally efficient guns and body armour instead of granting someone "+1 gear" goes a long way to serve as an equalizer, for example. It would likely result in a specialisation of "sub-categories" of combat, rather than making the Marine king of everything that has to do with fighting. I don't think anyone would feel much disadvantaged for just having to take cover more often than the Marine, as long as their weapons still cause the same (or even more!) destruction, coupled with other class-specific advantages (leadership, NPC allies, investigation, knowledge, social interaction, etc).

I have to say, I never really bought into this. When you're looking for an infiltrator, this is a different specialisation than the usual combat Renegade, as they would either attract just as much attention due to their looks and behaviour (just look at the picture!), or the population is so very oblivious of their presence that they might just as well bring the CSM along with a cape as disguise.

Thanks for the clue with the origin of mixed groups and DW btw. In a tabletop game it can make sense to play them together in a group cause you only portray specific situations like battles. These alliances exist during this "event" So an inquisitor calls for example a DW marine for aid for that specific task but I do not think that the marine lifes and travels together with the inquisitor for years and becomes part of his accompanying retinue. They are a resource to be called upon in specific situations, not an social interwoven part of an longstanding group. I think that DH 2.0 will do well portraying this with their Reinforcement system. ( maybe similar of how DW groups can call in a Dreadnought already under certain circumstances.)

Did you read Artemis' background? Because he was indeed part of the Inquisitor's cell for years. The Inquisitor game did not portray "ad-hoc" bands with reinforcements (though there were options for this as well - an Arco-flagellant is probably nothing you'd keep around for years), but well-attuned teams of characters recruited into a fixed coven. The quintessential Inquisitor's retinue as it exists in a bunch of novels, too.

For Space Marines, this goes back to GW's own fluff about the Deathwatch (which, as mentioned before, was originally invented for the Inquisitor game) as small squads most often led by an Inquisitor, not one of their own. Check the Index Astartes article from White Dwarf #259 here:

"In battle, each team normally comes under the authority of an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor, but, in some exceptional cases, a Deathwatch Captain or Librarian may assume command if circumstances dictate."

It was not before FFG invented its own version for the Deathwatch that this organisation split off from the Inquisition to become an independent entity. One of the many details that are just different in this particular interpretation of the 41st millennium.

FFG could easily retcon this back to the original state, just like they retconned SoB when comparing the Inquisitor's Handbook with Blood of Martyrs.

Obviously, it would become much more complicated to justify some other types of characters in such a mixed group, but not exactly impossible. A justification could be found either in the group's background (given that it all depends on the Inquisitor and his or her absolute authority in terms of requisitioning personnel), or the GM might construct the campaign around the player characters starting out on different paths, but seeing themselves forced to work together to combat the threat. Isn't this angle often used as a plot?

Another problem I would see in a unified system would be how character creation and advancement in the sense of skills and talents would work. Should they be part of the unified system or part of line setting books?

I would prefer to keep them line specific.

I'd say both. The basic rules should be in the core rulebook and similar to everyone, but the setting books could introduce tie-ins, or alternate options. For the former, consider how Only War handles character generation and advancement by presenting a single list of skills and talents and what you need to gain them, whereas the class tells you how to get there. For the latter, see the Inquisitor's Handbook.

I think it depends on what kind of character generation and advancement we would like to see. Personally, I think the Aptitudes system from OW was the best idea in this regard yet as it makes characters very adaptable and opens a lot of room for customisation. Coincidentally, it'd also be a very easy adaption for a unified ruleset, because you only need to print Aptitudes and other unique stuff with the class (in the supplement books) whilst skill and trait lists and descriptions remain in the core book. It would save a lot of tables that OW simply does not have or need, leaving more room for other stuff.

I'm really confused as to the difficulties you perceive.

I'm no game designer but I imagine there's potential problems in combat when adding psychic powers (including navigator powers) and/or vehicles (including space ships). Sure, these things work OK (mostly) in the individual rulesets but not so well together.

I'm really confused as to how you think that FFG can just mash five separate rulesets together and call it a day.

Well it is all about using roles. In good old DH 1.0 you also had non combat focused classes which are fun to play. So if you want a combat heavy character you go chaos space marines in mixed groups as you would choose guardsman or assassin in DH 1.0. Space Marines are in one on one always superior to un-augmented humans. As I mentioned before there are still possibilities to play humans as combat focused, using ranged weapons, augmentations and of course the most obvious but often overlooked possibility to play them as leaders of hordes/small armies/ cults etc.

Where Space Marines should be superior is their strength and their resilience, that's it. They are "tanks" that cause a lot of damage when they hit in melee. Neither must this mean that they are superior in any other area, nor that they are unkillable by the very same weapons as the others (I think this is largely an issue of the injury system and TB as "skin armour"), nor that they have a higher or even equal chance of hitting their target than the best non-Astartes combat character (snipers and assassins spring to mind - and the former could easily outclass an average Space Marine in focused ranged damage, whereas the latter might outclass him not with melee damage, but with melee accuracy and not getting hit at all).

That's what I meant earlier with a certain "minimum awesomeness" of what could rightfully be expected from a character, and that there is no need to inflate it beyond this minimum, because doing so sacrifices an element of balance that does not need to be sacrificed.

Certainly, as you say, there are lots of interpretations of what Space Marines "should" be capable of doing. But if you are deliberately gunning for Movie Marines, then I have to say that it would indeed be better for everyone to keep them confined to their own little extra RPG like Deathwatch where they can be as epic as their players want.

Simultaneously, why is this argument being made only for Space Marines? For example, how do you think SoB players would feel, being told that their characters are "equals to their brother Space Marines" (GW website), that their arms and armour are "the equal of any Space Marine Chapter" (3E Codex), but confronted with the fact that Grey Knights in the Daemon Hammer book completely and utterly outshine anything a Sister could do, because the current system saw fit to create a gap that is much wider than the original material suggests?

In a game that allows people to pick multiple classes, think of everyone instead of catering to the posterboy. Giving everyone access to equally efficient guns and body armour instead of granting someone "+1 gear" goes a long way to serve as an equalizer, for example. It would likely result in a specialisation of "sub-categories" of combat, rather than making the Marine king of everything that has to do with fighting. I don't think anyone would feel much disadvantaged for just having to take cover more often than the Marine, as long as their weapons still cause the same (or even more!) destruction, coupled with other class-specific advantages (leadership, NPC allies, investigation, knowledge, social interaction, etc).

Well I am not gunning for Movie Marines. I am just of the opinion that there can be a place for all kind of Marine interpretations in my rpgs. There is a place for Movie Marines, Movie Guardsman, Movie Psykers and so on.... These "Movie" interpretations are just exceptional individuals of their type. Of course players in an rpg group tend more to be exceptional characters... It is also supported mechanic wise fate point/infamy system. So yeah sometimes in my games Space Marines might be gunned downed in rows like rows, at other times a single "hero" Space Marine might hold an chokepoint alone against the Nid hordes. (over the top example, I know XD )

Regarding the SoB example: Yeah, I mean what does equal mean? It certainly does not mean the same!

So SoB arn't female Space Marines for sure. SoB use Bolters and PA similar to Space Marines but definitely not the same equipment. ( Godwyn-De'az Bolter etc...) They are highly trained elite soldiers with access to top lvl gear of imperial weaponry and the ability to cast acts of faith but in the end they are baseline humans while space marines are post human to start with, and a very different culture. If they are of equal strength is open for debate, I believe that it entirely depends on the circumstances, because both are tools in the imperial arsenal for different purposes.

Regarding the gap in the original material. For me there is no "original material" at least in a sense that it is superior to newer material of other 40k publishers like FFG of BL. So if FFG produces content under the 40k license it is as much canon and "true" as the GW stuff.

How the Grey Knights would fit into this I do not want to discuss here. They are rpg wise part of the Ascension system which is in my opinion a muckheap because of rule bugs to begin with. I am not against the idea of an Ascension like game, so where very mighty and exceptional individuals of the Imperium work together in one group if it is well crafted. (Be it human, astartes or whatever...) But it is not what baseline Dark Heresy should be about.

Regarding equalizing gear: Well that is not the point. Human Characters can do quite well in mixed group combat as long as it is 1on1. Its definitely not about this differences between an human bolt pistol vs an legion bolt pistol. (the difference is I think about 4 points of dmg.) The problem are hordes where Space Marines can survive because of their higher strength and their resilience, exactly the features you also said that Space Marines should differ from normal humans in your last post. When dealing with hordes the difference between human and legion weapons becomes more and more insignificant because of the way how the Magnitude Damage System works.

I have to say, I never really bought into this. When you're looking for an infiltrator, this is a different specialisation than the usual combat Renegade, as they would either attract just as much attention due to their looks and behaviour (just look at the picture!), or the population is so very oblivious of their presence that they might just as well bring the CSM along with a cape as disguise.

Sorry here I have to disagree from the bottom of my heart!

1. The human Heretics are just that: Human, so they can move as humans through human society by just changing their outfit. The picture in the book is just an example. If he or she changes its cloth to stuff without chaos sings it would just appear as any other armed imperial individual from guardsman over bodyguard, bounty hunter, ganger ... whatever.

2. There is no "infiltration class" Heretics in that sense. Cults, heresies etc. most often form within imperial society and are part of these. That is also what a big part of DH investigation is about. With BC you could also play the other side which would often work similar in method and procedure.

3. I don't buy into this thing that you can cover a space marine rags to hide him. (Or servitor, or Ogryn disguise or similar rubbish). They dramatically differ from the holy shape of a standard human. Even without PA they could never openly move within imperial society, and even on the deepest lawless levels of an hive world, an Astartes sighting would probably generate buzz between ganger or mutant factions.

Did you read Artemis' background? Because he was indeed part of the Inquisitor's cell for years. The Inquisitor game did not portray "ad-hoc" bands with reinforcements (though there were options for this as well - an Arco-flagellant is probably nothing you'd keep around for years), but well-attuned teams of characters recruited into a fixed coven. The quintessential Inquisitor's retinue as it exists in a bunch of novels, too.

For Space Marines, this goes back to GW's own fluff about the Deathwatch (which, as mentioned before, was originally invented for the Inquisitor game) as small squads most often led by an Inquisitor, not one of their own. Check the Index Astartes article from White Dwarf #259 here:

"In battle, each team normally comes under the authority of an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor, but, in some exceptional cases, a Deathwatch Captain or Librarian may assume command if circumstances dictate."

It was not before FFG invented its own version for the Deathwatch that this organisation split off from the Inquisition to become an independent entity. One of the many details that are just different in this particular interpretation of the 41st millennium.

FFG could easily retcon this back to the original state, just like they retconned SoB when comparing the Inquisitor's Handbook with Blood of Martyrs.

Obviously, it would become much more complicated to justify some other types of characters in such a mixed group, but not exactly impossible. A justification could be found either in the group's background (given that it all depends on the Inquisitor and his or her absolute authority in terms of requisitioning personnel), or the GM might construct the campaign around the player characters starting out on different paths, but seeing themselves forced to work together to combat the threat. Isn't this angle often used as a plot?

Well I don't remember any detail but I think he was not part of an inquisitors cell group but the leader of his kill team. Which is a very different thing with different tasks assigned. In addition the cells in DH newly recruited Acolyte cells. This is build around the idea that the work quite disconnected from their inquisitor in practices, there is not much contact. So they are most often not accompanying their inquisitor but are tasked by him to work autonomous on certain missions. An Astarte would not really fit into that. Like mentioned before it could be different in high lvl DH games.

I find the FFG interpretation of DW more believable and well-considered. You can also still give an Inquisitor command over a DW killteam, permanent, non-permanent, accompanying them in the field or just giving missions from far away. Again it's a matter of preference of interpretation.

(I am not sure what you mean that SoB were retconned in BoM. As I have understood the Character generation & Faith rules they are just an alternative to the IHB rules which are still valid.)

Agreed. It becomes more complicated to justify and I am totally ok with that cause every group/gm must decide what they want in their group. But if I start to invent more and more exotic reasons to justify certain characters I have to ask myself if I do any good for my rp group if I allow them. I have to ask myself why I want that character to be in that group in the first place? Just for the rule of cool? Can I keep up "fictional believability"? Would it be fun for the group, player, gm to have a specific character in my campagin?

I prefer group combinations which fit into the setting I intend to play and in the setting of most DH adventures I run, there would be no place for Astartes player characters because they are about investigation, secrecy, staying inconspicuous, faked identities.

I'd say both. The basic rules should be in the core rulebook and similar to everyone, but the setting books could introduce tie-ins, or alternate options. For the former, consider how Only War handles character generation and advancement by presenting a single list of skills and talents and what you need to gain them, whereas the class tells you how to get there. For the latter, see the Inquisitor's Handbook.

I think it depends on what kind of character generation and advancement we would like to see. Personally, I think the Aptitudes system from OW was the best idea in this regard yet as it makes characters very adaptable and opens a lot of room for customisation. Coincidentally, it'd also be a very easy adaption for a unified ruleset, because you only need to print Aptitudes and other unique stuff with the class (in the supplement books) whilst skill and trait lists and descriptions remain in the core book. It would save a lot of tables that OW simply does not have or need, leaving more room for other stuff.

Well yeah here it becomes complicated. I am of the opinion that the char generation and advancement should be totally tied to the setting. Examles are how xp costs work. In BC they depend on your attachment on chaos gods. In DH you have a confined class system representing the restrictions of the caste based/feudal imperial society, in OW you have the Aptitude thing.

A Heretik living in the Vortex might have cheap access to forbidden knowledge like demonology, or others while you need to be a Space Marine to have access to special talents of certain chapters or you need to be a member of the BoS to have faith powers. (In DH you also had cybernetics which you buy with xp in parallel to the rules for buyable cybernetics!). An Guardsman will have cheaper access to militiary skills of the IG or an Admech gains access to arkane lore etc...

What I mean is that certain advancements and their costs are tied to a social of physical context which would be hard to universalise in a single book. This does not mean that they should not be compatible in regards of game mechanics in the same system. Just that access and costs could vary dramatically depending on background and setting

So I would stay with basic rules for a unified book like battle, vehicles, skills&traits&talents (what they do rule wise, not xp costs), psy, sorcery, rituals and advanced versions of them like rune weapons, minions, hordes, crafting, investigations rules, flyer, racing, chasing rules, maybe large scale battles etc... Things which can be used in every setting.

I'm really confused as to the difficulties you perceive.

I'm no game designer but I imagine there's potential problems in combat when adding psychic powers (including navigator powers) and/or vehicles (including space ships). Sure, these things work OK (mostly) in the individual rulesets but not so well together.

I'm really confused as to how you think that FFG can just mash five separate rulesets together and call it a day.

Calling these games "five separate rulesets" is a horrendous exaggeration of how different from each other they are.

Like I said earlier, give me about a month and I'll give you a unified ruleset that'll handle different power levels at least as well as Black Crusade does.

I'm really confused as to the difficulties you perceive.

I'm no game designer but I imagine there's potential problems in combat when adding psychic powers (including navigator powers) and/or vehicles (including space ships). Sure, these things work OK (mostly) in the individual rulesets but not so well together.

I'm really confused as to how you think that FFG can just mash five separate rulesets together and call it a day.

Calling these games "five separate rulesets" is a horrendous exaggeration of how different from each other they are.

Like I said earlier, give me about a month and I'll give you a unified ruleset that'll handle different power levels at least as well as Black Crusade does.

It wouldn't even take a month. Just ignore Deathwatch and take all the other books and glue the pages together.

There, done.

Why it would be a problem converting/making/adding Psychic Powers/Navigator Powers to a Unified Ruleset, I have no clue. Every new iteration of the game has brought about new ways to use psychic power or simply new powers, and a lot of people have painstakingly converted powers from older rulesets.

Why would that even be an issue, I have no idea. How is this in any way a potential problem with a unified ruleset?

It wouldn't even take a month. Just ignore Deathwatch and take all the other books and glue the pages together.

There, done.

Well, a month is what it'd take me to make real quality stuff - you know, psychic powers from across all lines ported to a common format, cleaning up references to non-existent mechanics, compiling a giant list of equipment...

Really, I'd have done so ages ago, if only I weren't so lazy.

It took us about 3 months. But we incorporated the majority of the material released for the lines at the time, and we edited out maybe 90% of the word-spam clogging up the rules. And, of course, we turned the whole thing into a fully indexed html document with (accurate!) references to the source material.

Mind, this was primarily done by two people who either had no job or wasn't working for most of the time.

Actually doing a reasonably competent job of it takes a deceptively long time. In no small part because it's often faster to re-write rules from scratch, than it is to try to salvage something worthwhile from the source material's wording.

- If it makes you feel better, FFG people, pretty much everyone sucks at concise rules writing. You're not special in that regard. But man, I wish you'd drop the "repetition, repetition, repetition" and "spirit of rulez what it means? lemme just stuff teh fluff in dere and iz good see?" mantras, because nobody benefits from either of those stupid ideas. They eat up page count that could be spent on worthwhile stuff, and they make consulting the rules a painfully slow and far more confusing process than it could be.

There is a place for Movie Marines, Movie Guardsman, Movie Psykers and so on.... These "Movie" interpretations are just exceptional individuals of their type. Of course players in an rpg group tend more to be exceptional characters... It is also supported mechanic wise fate point/infamy system.

Absolutely - it just becomes a problem when one character gets this bonus but another doesn't, or in a lesser way. Oftentimes, I see people calling Dark Heresy the "scrub game", which should give a good impression of what happens when you throw a Marine in there.

The irony is that FFG is even openly admitting how broken this is in the Daemon Hunter book, and how insignificant the Acolytes would become (even going so far as saying that it's not that the GK is serving alongside the Acolytes, but that the Acolytes are allowed to serve alongside the GK). It can still work out if no-one else in the group wants to shine in combat and is focusing on other aspects of the group, of course, but in the end you're making entire classes irrelevant there.

They are highly trained elite soldiers with access to top lvl gear of imperial weaponry and the ability to cast acts of faith but in the end they are baseline humans while space marines are post human to start with, and a very different culture. If they are of equal strength is open for debate, I believe that it entirely depends on the circumstances, because both are tools in the imperial arsenal for different purposes.

"Different purposes"? That depends on what you think these purposes are. They still end up fighting the very same enemies, and if you go by studio fluff, the Sisters count eradicating rogue Marine Chapters amongst one of their tasks. One I could hardly see them pursueing with the rules currently presented in this RPG.

My opinion is not entirely different from yours, I think. To me, it seems like two paths towards the same goal, with both forces having distinct advantages that give them unique benefits allow them to deal with situational challenges in different ways.

And "top level gear"? Unfortunately, this RPG does not agree with you there. Anyone but the Marines gets "civilian weapons" (rulebook quote!) whose stats are notably lower than the good +1 Astartes stuff. Even the Marines' flamers are burning a couple degrees hotter, it seems.

Regarding the gap in the original material. For me there is no "original material" at least in a sense that it is superior to newer material of other 40k publishers like FFG of BL. So if FFG produces content under the 40k license it is as much canon and "true" as the GW stuff.

We're on the same page there, as this is what I gleaned from the people who have been working on the material themselves . There is no singular truth, just lots of different interpretations. Still, I hope you can understand a certain degree of disappointment when one sees their favourite faction portrayed in a notably different in these outsourced materials, especially given all the hopes and the perceived potential attached.

How the Grey Knights would fit into this I do not want to discuss here. They are rpg wise part of the Ascension system which is in my opinion a muckheap because of rule bugs to begin with.

I have the book here - you can actually start playing with them right away. They begin with 13.000 xp, which would be equal to an Ascension character, but the book makes no mention of that module and refers to Acolyte groups rather than Throne Agents. The 13k XP is them being at Rank 1, rather than an Ascension character (Rank 9).

Regarding equalizing gear: Well that is not the point. Human Characters can do quite well in mixed group combat as long as it is 1on1. Its definitely not about this differences between an human bolt pistol vs an legion bolt pistol. (the difference is I think about 4 points of dmg.) The problem are hordes where Space Marines can survive because of their higher strength and their resilience, exactly the features you also said that Space Marines should differ from normal humans in your last post. When dealing with hordes the difference between human and legion weapons becomes more and more insignificant because of the way how the Magnitude Damage System works.

The differences between this newly invented classification into "human" and "legion" weapons is part of the problem. You say 4 points isn't much, but it can be the difference between not being enough to overcome an enemy's AP+TB, and causing 4 wounds.

Likewise, Strength doesn't actually change much about survivability, and Toughness is a system that I generally regard as screwed up, and which I maintain needs revisiting. This is the most basic requirement for a universal ruleset - the game must stop treating the ability to better cope with injuries still received as if they are negated entirely. A naked Space Marine shouldn't be more resilient against a plasma shot than the armour he wears, but that is what's happening here, and this is what is breaking the balance both mechanically as well as narratively (don't tell me you think this is realistic or fits to the fluff ).

It even poses a problem when no Marines are around, simply due to how TB and AP stack and what this means for an Acolyte group where someone is pushing for maximised resilience in comparison to everyone else. How often did I read from GMs complaining about normal weapons not hurting their players anymore?

Fix how TB works, and witness how suddenly you no longer need to have weapons magically double or triple their threat potential in Hordes, and how you no longer need to give everyone different weapons and different enemies.

As for disguising an Astartes ...

Human heretics are human and may be able to hide as long as they don't start spouting mutations or tattoo symbols of Chaos veneration onto exposed body parts, or display other obvious signs of heretical behaviour. Given how BC works, I doubt you can stay "inconspicuous" forever.

Also, what's wrong with an Ogryn or Servitor disguise? I didn't even get that idea and it should work nicely.

Humans differ from world to world. Compare a Catachan to a Mordian and you see what I mean. Also, there actually are mutations in the Hives that are similar in shape to the Astartes. Ever heard of the Scalies on Necromunda?

Well I don't remember any detail but I think he was not part of an inquisitors cell group but the leader of his kill team. Which is a very different thing with different tasks assigned.

I've linked it earlier.

"In the service of Inquisitor Severnius, Artemis first saw action against a Genestealer cult on the Missionary world of St Capilene, where the prompt action of the kill-team undoubtedly saved the world from falling under cult domination. Inquisitor Severnius personally praised Artemis' bravery and appointed him second in command of the kill-team. For two decades Artemis fought alongside Inquisitor Severnius, rooting out alien corruption and destroying alien influenced cults wherever they were discovered."

I find the FFG interpretation of DW more believable and well-considered.

I suppose it is a matter of preferences. I've heard most DW players prefer it that way, as it makes their Marines independent from those "puny humans" and they don't like a non-Astartes calling the shots.

Ironically, it of course goes against the very reason for why the Deathwatch was invented - both in-universe (to give the OX a strike force that is always available and follows their orders to the letter) as well as out-of-universe (to allow mixed groups).

I will admit that FFG came up with an alternative that makes sense, if you discard Games Workshop's original material (including the reasons for the Codex Astartes .. apparently the Imperium is okay with a massive independent power base of Astartes having fleets of undetectable kill-ships that can lay waste to entire worlds).

(I am not sure what you mean that SoB were retconned in BoM. As I have understood the Character generation & Faith rules they are just an alternative to the IHB rules which are still valid.)

Their numbers in the sector were centuplicated (in essence, they were turned from an elite strike force into line troops spread across Calixis), and FFG gave them all-out divine magic as opposed to the more vague original "miracles" (which, in IH, were still close to GW's material). In essence, their background reads "weaker" than before.

Mechanically, they were made both stronger as well as weaker, depending on what level you look at (they start out OP due to their gear, but get overtaken as their advancements are so expensive).

But if I start to invent more and more exotic reasons to justify certain characters I have to ask myself if I do any good for my rp group if I allow them. I have to ask myself why I want that character to be in that group in the first place? Just for the rule of cool? Can I keep up "fictional believability"? Would it be fun for the group, player, gm to have a specific character in my campagin?

Isn't "rule of cool" the reason behind the vast majority of character classes available in the game?

That being said, GW has already delivered believable, plausible reasons. As I said earlier, Dark Heresy isn't the first game about Inquisitors and their teams. But it sure feels more limiting.

You're also forgetting that FFG has been quite liberal with these things in other examples. Why do you have Storm Troopers sticking around with grunt squads in Only War? Why are there female Vostroyans? Why did IH came up with the idea of "Detached Novices"? Because rule of cool. So if you criticise this aspect, then you should apply this criticism across the board.

Besides, a unified ruleset wouldn't focus just on the stuff in Dark Heresy, and there's a whole lot of situations a GM could come up with to justify a character's presence, even for a longer duration.

Well yeah here it becomes complicated. I am of the opinion that the char generation and advancement should be totally tied to the setting. Examles are how xp costs work. In BC they depend on your attachment on chaos gods. In DH you have a confined class system representing the restrictions of the caste based/feudal imperial society, in OW you have the Aptitude thing.

A Heretik living in the Vortex might have cheap access to forbidden knowledge like demonology, or others while you need to be a Space Marine to have access to special talents of certain chapters or you need to be a member of the BoS to have faith powers. (In DH you also had cybernetics which you buy with xp in parallel to the rules for buyable cybernetics!). An Guardsman will have cheaper access to militiary skills of the IG or an Admech gains access to arkane lore etc...

What I mean is that certain advancements and their costs are tied to a social of physical context which would be hard to universalise in a single book. This does not mean that they should not be compatible in regards of game mechanics in the same system. Just that access and costs could vary dramatically depending on background and setting

Oh, I think such factors could be solved by including a small'ish box with "special features" that tweak the rules in the main rulebook without replacing them. Obviously, the main rules would have to be set up in a manner that supports such tie-ins (such as by grouping various skills in categories like "military", "cult", etc. or expanding the Aptitudes), but I hardly believe this is impossible - it works in other games, too.

Perhaps it might be best to treat setting-based classes as "specialisations", whereas the main rulebook has the class descriptions and mechanics be broad enough to encompass these specialisations as well as many other concepts. Isn't this what the DH2 Beta was trying to achieve?

Might be a matter of preferences, too, though.

That being said, let's not pretend that the limitations in class advancement had to do much with the background. A Hive Scum character in Dark Heresy certainly should not be more "culturally restricted" than a Mordian Guardsman in Only War.

I think it's obvious that the background provided for these limits was merely to justify a mechanical decision, rather than the mechanics having been constructed around the background.

Also, apologies for the wall of text. >_<

Like I said earlier, give me about a month and I'll give you a unified ruleset that'll handle different power levels at least as well as Black Crusade does.

lol OK

Oftentimes, I see people calling Dark Heresy the "scrub game", which should give a good impression of what happens when you throw a Marine in there.

The irony is that FFG is even openly admitting how broken this is in the Daemon Hunter book, and how insignificant the Acolytes would become (even going so far as saying that it's not that the GK is serving alongside the Acolytes, but that the Acolytes are allowed to serve alongside the GK). It can still work out if no-one else in the group wants to shine in combat and is focusing on other aspects of the group, of course, but in the end you're making entire classes irrelevant there.

The real irony is that your projections couldn't be more wrong. Introduce a starting DW/GK Marine to a team of 13000 exp Acolytes, and the "scrubs" will run circles around the clueless giant, including in combat. And I'm not talking Ascension characters - just corebook careers at 13k exp. I've seen that happen, more than once.

It's not a problem in BC, where everyone starts with similar amounts of exp and uses same costs for purchasing advancements, but between DH and DW/Daemon Hunter, the gap in favor of humans is just silly.

It took us about 3 months. But we incorporated the majority of the material released for the lines at the time, and we edited out maybe 90% of the word-spam clogging up the rules. And, of course, we turned the whole thing into a fully indexed html document with (accurate!) references to the source material.

[...]

Source or it didn't happen.

...no seriously though, hook me up, dammit.

The real irony is that your projections couldn't be more wrong. Introduce a starting DW/GK Marine to a team of 13000 exp Acolytes, and the "scrubs" will run circles around the clueless giant, including in combat. And I'm not talking Ascension characters - just corebook careers at 13k exp. I've seen that happen, more than once.

It's not a problem in BC, where everyone starts with similar amounts of exp and uses same costs for purchasing advancements, but between DH and DW/Daemon Hunter, the gap in favor of humans is just silly.

"Favor"? With armor that offers less protection, and weapons that do fewer damage, not to mention the Unnatural Toughness plus psychic powers on top of everything else the GK gets? I'm curious as to how exactly you did achieve this - and I really hope that you won't be pointing to the few truly broken careers in Ascension now.

I would also like to know how it is "not a problem in BC" in regards to how exactly you make a "normal" Renegade an at least somewhat similarly valuable team member in combat as a CSM - and hope that you won't be pointing to railroading combat with specific opponents only attacking specific PCs, as some other GMs do.

And again, the Daemon Hunter book makes no mention of using the GK alongside 13k XP characters. In fact, it clearly says "Acolytes", meaning non-ascended characters.