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

If only it was mine to share.

But look on the bright side: it incorporates all our house rules, so there's a good chance it'd be even less useful to you than the official material in its original form.

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

If only it was mine to share.

But look on the bright side: it incorporates all our house rules, so there's a good chance it'd be even less useful to you than the official material in its original form.

Well then poke whomever threw it together and fork that shizzle all over quick-like! House rules or no, I'd love any work done for the purposes of a unified ruleset, since I'm slowly working on my own.

I'm sad to say I suggest you keep working on it. I don't ever want to see what we've done with FFG's stuff floating about the interwebs, because it is theirs. Not ours.

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.

Didn't I say "no Ascension"?

I think we need to get a few basic things straight. First of all, armor is almost meaningless at higher tiers of play - you either get weapons that can slice through power armor no problem by virtue of high Pen, or ones that easily deal damage in excess of armor value, or both. The only semi-viable armor build I've seen so far is the Ascension Magos, and we're explicitly not talking about Ascension here.

Toughness, while better than armor, encounters the same issues - damage values just get too high to count on Toughness for pulling through high-tier enemies. Power, Force, Plasma and Melta weapons laugh in the face of your "skin armor". At best, you're mitigating a few points to maybe go down in four attacks instead of two.

At this point in the metagame, what really makes you survivable is evasion, either by means of dodging or by means of force fields (I'm assuming Ascension mechanic for force fields, although they were available ever since Inquisitors' Handbook, as it's just a better system that carried through to other lines).

Now, just to be clear, I'm going by the official crossover guidelines of comparing exp totals between systems. They are quite unfair to anyone except DH characters, but they're the closest thing we get to an official measure of character power between systems.

By these guidelines, a starting DW/GK Marine is a 13-14k exp character, which corresponds to the end of the eight rank Dark Heresy. Now, a character of this level can easily have two Dodges in the ballpark of 70% evasion chance, and should be able to afford at least a refractor field for a constant 30% evasion chance - some manner of conversion field would be preferable, but I know some GMs get very stingy with those. This should be achievable on top of something like a hexagrammatically warded carapace armor, perhaps even a Malleus Power Armor (which, by the way, costs less than best craftsmanship stormtrooper carapace, so go ahead and figure which one people will want to buy). Meanwhile, a starting Marine gets one dodge in the ballpark of 40-50% evasion chance, and no chance to get a force field of any kind at this level.

Okay, that leaves the awesome offense of the Astartes to make them shine! Except, we're talking about a Space Marine with a storm bolter at best (and only in the case of Grey Knights at this point) against humans with power swords, plasma cannons and melta pistols. All of them likely of higher than common craftsmanship at this point, for added perks. And mind, they don't exactly need to match Astartes' damage point for point, they just need to deal enough to get a decent shot at killing the enemy. The generally higher combat skills of a fully advanced, endgame DH build combined with best craftsmanship bonuses will make them hit more often to offset the slight disadvantage in raw damage numbers. At best, the Astartes are on equal footing here. At this point, humans will also simply make more melee attacks (only Assault Marines can start with Swift Attack, whereas melee oriented humans are probably Lightning Attacking while two-weapon wielding without penalties at this point, and will generally match Marines in the average number of hits from ranged weapons.

All in all, the advantages piled on Astartes characters aren't quite as meaningful as they look.

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.

Sniping, or heavy weapons - Adroit works great with either, and they let one keep away from the hurting. I can't fathom how Astartes being at a significant advantage in melee could possibly be construed as a bad thing.

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.

Well... duh? Put a 13k Acolyte next to a 5k Acolyte, and the latter will be just as much a chump as compared to a Grey Knight. I don't think there's any remedy to characters of different level performing at different level.

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.

This problems exist because the power of Grey Knights is taken from the fluff. It would but stupid to dumb down Grey Knights so that the lvl 1 Guardsman can feel significant in combat and make them compatible with lvl 1 groups. If you don't like this, just don't use them. In addition being allowed to serve these individuals is quite right. It is clearly described that the Acolytes are lucky if they get not killed/mindscrubed after the mission just for knowing the Grey Knights existence! In addition to anyone else who was a witness, which makes them useless for investigation.

"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.

Giving them Astartes the same equipment as baseline humans would not feel right for me but that is a question of preference of interpretation. (For me the reason why Astartes are created so big is primary to carry and use heavier guns and swords, otherwise their size would only have negative consequences on the battlefield.)

SoB have a great gear advantage in DH, also in the way how she can requisite her equipment even at quite low levels. Just compare them to Stormtroopers (vs Sister Palatine) which share a similar background. (Elite soldiers, Schola Progenium).

Using Recoil gloves rules from BC the sister could also use these weapons with only -10 penalty. (Astartes gear is, at least in BC harder to get) But if you play your Palatine in a DW group you could also easily use the Astartes weapons including things like heavy bolters. (Heavy weapons stay heavy in human hands class wise, in SoB PA heavy count as brace.

SoB are in addition strongly regulated in powerlvl through their gear and how they get it. In the rules you find suggestions to power them down for lower DH groups through gear restrictions. If used in higher DW games you could easily gear up to Astartes lvl.

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.

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).

Look at page 138. Headline Grey Knight Ascension Campaigns. More than that it clearly states that if you intend to use grey knights player characters for a whole DH campaign instead of just unusual instances you should use Throne Agents aka Ascention (or make an GK only game!). It further states a warning of balancing where even if the military Throne Agents are equal to an astartes, the could still be outshined by the Grey Knight.

Also some pages before that, it described in detail why normal acolytes should not meet or even know about the existence of grey knights. Instead it just shows exceptions and examples how they could appear like dreamlike visions from the past etc.... XD

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.

Strength is important in horde battles as soon as you are in melee and they try to Grapple you down.

Regarding TB and wound system. Yeah it is abstract, but so is every other wound system in RPGs. That TB can appear strange if your "Skin Amour" is stronger that your PA is true. But I would not see TB as Amour but it's just a measure how a body copes with dmg. It does not mean that the bullet did not penetrate your skin but how well your body reacted to that hit - in detail, that it did not influence your wound pool. What wounds represent is a different question as much as why you start developing critical effects when it reaches zero....

But in the end their might be some rework necessary but it is also just a game and should not become a simulation. (hrhr dodging ranged attacks ;D ) Further I don't see the problem of players immune to dmg so much in the way TB works but in the way how Zealous Hatred/Righteous Furry works. This is because it is always the same change that you roll a 10 on a dmg dice, independent of your skill. I will test another system soon in my game where ZH/RF is caused by doubles of the skill roll & called shots. So a character with a higher skill will have a higher chance of rolling doubles and inflict ZH in addition to the natural 10 of the dmg dice.

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.

"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."

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).

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.

Well yeah I think there is also the misconception again which sticked to DH 1.0 from the beginning. DH base is NOT and rpg version of the Inquisitor tabletop game, it is also NOT the RPG version of the Eisenhorn books! That would be what Ascention is/should have been about, but sadly it turned out to be more of a rule train wreck... at least in my perspective.

DH is just NOT about an Inquisitor and his team. Instead it is about an autonomous cell of Acolytes, freshly recruited to work independently from its Inquisitor who is just a mysterious figure in the background. Some groups might have nearly no contact with him or only have seen him once. It is a game about investigation and cosmic horror, insanity and corruption with the low power level of human insignificance. It is more or less Call of Cthulhu in 40k.

That why I think that a unified book would be nice but a unified setting would be horrible.

In addition the convulsive attempts to justify certain characters in settings, like a Grey Knight in an acolyte Cell would just kill the atmosphere straight from the start. So instead of a "Rule of Cool" I prefer the "Rule of Atmosphere" for my RPGs. ;D

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.

Again - wall of text

Didn't I say "no Ascension"?

You said 13k XP ... that is Rank 9 - Ascension.

Keep in mind that FFG has updates its XP tables. I'm assuming you were still going by the original tables, hence the miscommunication?

At this point in the metagame, what really makes you survivable is evasion, either by means of dodging or by means of force fields (I'm assuming Ascension mechanic for force fields, although they were available ever since Inquisitors' Handbook, as it's just a better system that carried through to other lines).

Depending on your GM and your group. Not every character will be an Assassin with a dozen Dodges, and not everyone will own a force-field. Most of all, the group's enemies likely won't, else combat would probably drag on for quite a while.

Okay, that leaves the awesome offense of the Astartes to make them shine! Except, we're talking about a Space Marine with a storm bolter at best (and only in the case of Grey Knights at this point) against humans with power swords, plasma cannons and melta pistols. All of them likely of higher than common craftsmanship at this point, for added perks. And mind, they don't exactly need to match Astartes' damage point for point, they just need to deal enough to get a decent shot at killing the enemy.

You're ignoring that the game would ultimately progress beyond this level, where "mundane" characters have already reached their zenith, yet the Space Marines merely start getting awesome. What are you going to do once your Astartes gets hold of a power sword or plasma cannon, for example? And of course it'd likely be one of those shiny +1 weapons the Marines get under the current rules...

This problems exist because the power of Grey Knights is taken from the fluff. It would but stupid to dumb down Grey Knights so that the lvl 1 Guardsman can feel significant in combat and make them compatible with lvl 1 groups.

There is not just a single uniform fluff, though - looking through all available sources, you can get anything from Cannonfodder to Movie Marines and between. FFG's current version is more powerful than the one in GW's games, which I feel is rooted in the nature of how SB and TB work here (as this required to create more powerful enemies and weapons so as to not have rocks thrown by Marines be more dangerous than their bolters), so an overhaul of the entire system would be necessary for a uniform ruleset, and Marines would have to be nudged down a bit.

I don't think anyone would propose to bring them to a level where 1 Guardsman would be able to rival them (especially Grey Knights - those should be something for much higher levels of play) - but I do think it would be possible for that Guardsman to "feel significant" without actually impeding on the Marine, simply by giving both the same kind of bolter. Voilà, equal ranged combat power. It just so happens that the Marine will also be able to suffer more injuries, though this is largely a result of his armour.

It would ultimately depend on the scope of the campaign whether the Guardsman would have access to this kind of equipment or not, meaning whether the GM would be running an Only War-style campaign, or a Dark Heresi'esque investigation. In the former, you'd probably not have bolters and power armour, but also no Space Marines. In the latter, Inquisitorial armouries should provide the necessary tools for equal ground in at least some categories of combat.

There are indeed two kind of calibers. The one that is used by humans with 1d10+5X and the one used by Astartes with 1d10+9X. This is ok for me representing the bigger caliber and SM gear over all. (And yes, maybe the bigger flamer might have a higher promethium output and so the cleansing fires burns hotter ;D )

You are aware that even FFG's books describe "civilian" and Astartes bolters to both have a caliber of 0.75 inches?

But yes, a difference of interpretation, and I guess a debate would just move in circles... I simply grew up with GW's original material, and kind of dislike how apparently someone thought that Space Marines are not yet awesome enough, and how it negatively affects the perception of other factions by simultaneously making them less awesome.

Apart from how it (imo) makes crossovers like they sometimes happen in some books more difficult, obviously. But that, too, is currently in the nature of FFG's games, seeing as to how they "segregate" the different groups neatly into their own RPGs, all with their own little rules. Still don't like it, but it (kind of) works.

I will just say that talking about a Unified Ruleset makes little sense when we'd stick to the Marines as they currently exist. Needlessly empowering them even beyond their genetic enhancements makes it only more difficult to produce the crossover-capability that would be a Unified Rulset's main advantage.

SoB have a great gear advantage in DH, also in the way how she can requisite her equipment even at quite low levels.

To be honest I'd recommend sticking to the SoB from the Inquisitor's Handbook. The one from Blood of Martyrs is too powerful from early levels (due to said gear advantage), and progresses to slowly later on (due to high XP costs).

I should also add that I am heavily biased against BoM for what it did to the Sororitas in terms of Faith, and their background in the sector, though.

I think you are wrong in this point. The book makes explicit mention of the Ascension module!

Look at page 138. Headline Grey Knight Ascension Campaigns. More than that it clearly states that if you intend to use grey knights player characters for a whole DH campaign instead of just unusual instances you should use Throne Agents aka Ascention (or make an GK only game!). It further states a warning of balancing where even if the military Throne Agents are equal to an astartes, the could still be outshined by the Grey Knight.

It seems we were both correct, in a way! Upon re-reading it, the book actually adresses Grey Knights alongside normal Acolytes (page 136) as well as Throne Agents (page 138), whilst suggesting that the latter would be far more balanced (still doubt that - but then again, I lack the experience to cast anything other than a precursory estimate).

Well as I said the 4 points aren't a real difference when using horde rules. If you get through AP+TP of the weak horde troopers, which you would nearly always do, you do 1 point of Magnitude Dmg unrewarding the real dmg you do.

Strength is important in horde battles as soon as you are in melee and they try to Grapple you down.

Regarding TB and wound system. Yeah it is abstract, but so is every other wound system in RPGs. That TB can appear strange if your "Skin Amour" is stronger that your PA is true. But I would not see TB as Amour but it's just a measure how a body copes with dmg. It does not mean that the bullet did not penetrate your skin but how well your body reacted to that hit - in detail, that it did not influence your wound pool. What wounds represent is a different question as much as why you start developing critical effects when it reaches zero....

Oh, I'm not talking Horde rules. Those are an entirely different beast, though they certainly deserve their share of criticism as well. It's funny how anything becomes a lot easier to fight once you group them into Hordes just due to that Sudden Death rule, just like weapons magically triple their damage output once you have 10 guys fire them in a squad rather than as 10 characters individually. No, I'm talking normal characters. Especially bosses.

I think Horde rules aren't even meant for usage with Non-DW characters due to the "exploding dice" phenomenon?

As for Toughness - I certainly agree that this is what TB was meant to display, but let's be honest, it's doing a bad job at it. For all intents and purposes, it is another stack of armour. A far better representation would be a mechanic that makes a character's body better or worse at dealing with injuries still suffered ! Y'know, kind of like it was in the Inquisitor game, where TB essentially acted as a buffer between Critical Injury effects, and anything that went through your AP immediately got into Crits.

Deadly, but at the same time not as deadly as crippling. Characters would have a higher chance ending up with injuries of various levels, sometimes requiring cybernetic replacements. Compared to FFG's previous games, where going into Crits meant that, in all likelihood, you'd be dead next round.

As for Captain Artemis: I suppose that depends on how you define a cell - in my interpretation, anything that qualifies as an Inquisitor's immediate retinue counts as such, and Severnius travelled with these Marines wherever he went. I suppose he is a good example for the more martial kind of Inquisitor. Gav Thorpe's "Using Space Marines" PDF for Inquisitor also makes it clear they actually invented Astartes to lead Ordo Xenos teams of normal people.

Still, I do agree that they don't fit in every setting! Then again, this could probably be said for a wide range of characters. A Unified Ruleset should also accomodate something like a Necromunda ganger campaign, or an Adeptus Arbites game, and very few classes from the various books should have a place there (except perhaps as NPCs).

I just want the various characters to be on a somewhat equal footing where they are somewhat likely to work alongside each other. Coincidentally, this also makes for more potential to "recycle" one campaign's enemies for another without a need to rewrite their stats.

Well yeah I think there is also the misconception again which sticked to DH 1.0 from the beginning. DH base is NOT and rpg version of the Inquisitor tabletop game, it is also NOT the RPG version of the Eisenhorn books! That would be what Ascention is/should have been about, but sadly it turned out to be more of a rule train wreck... at least in my perspective.

DH is just NOT about an Inquisitor and his team. Instead it is about an autonomous cell of Acolytes, freshly recruited to work independently from its Inquisitor who is just a mysterious figure in the background. Some groups might have nearly no contact with him or only have seen him once. It is a game about investigation and cosmic horror, insanity and corruption with the low power level of human insignificance. It is more or less Call of Cthulhu in 40k.

That why I think that a unified book would be nice but a unified setting would be horrible.

In addition the convulsive attempts to justify certain characters in settings, like a Grey Knight in an acolyte Cell would just kill the atmosphere straight from the start. So instead of a "Rule of Cool" I prefer the "Rule of Atmosphere" for my RPGs. ;D

Agreed about the misconception. I "suffered" from that as well, or maybe still do, and possibly hoped for something else than the makers actually intended. It is weird, though, that they would then go on and add a character like a Battle Sister to this selection ... which is actually why I've been saying that, perhaps, it would be smarter for DH2 to not feature them. Better not have something at all than a twisted version of it conforming to this "level of human insignificance".

I do disagree about the supposed incompatibility of the Rule of Cool and Rule of Atmosphere, though. Actually, in my book, they are one and the same. I guess it just depends on what we think is cool - to me, there is such a thing as "too epic". At least in games - I did enjoy watching "300" as much as anyone.

I am not sure if this would really do justice to the differences, especially if you include chaos and alien factions in an unified sourcebook. Just think about how BC character development differs from all the other systems, but how close the game play mechanics are to OW. In addition, if you pack all this differences for character creation in one book you would also have to put all descriptions into it about the different backgrounds - bursting the limit of one book and cannibalizing setting books.

I think there's a misunderstanding! I'm not proposing putting all this stuff into the core book - that would be both impossible (the book would become way too thick) as well as financially unsound (the supplements wouldn't sell). No, just enough basics for the GM and his or her players to create something basic and, if need be, fill any gaps with their own ideas. Want more? Buy the setting book(s)!

Basically, the core rulebook should feature rules that focus on a very broad definition of the class (like "warrior"), whereas setting supplements would give you more stuff to specialise on distinct cultures like "Chaos Renegades", "Imperial Guard", "Hive Gangs", or "Feral Worlds" - complete with special local versions of various weapons and armour or unique equipment, as well as rules for modifying the standard progression path for something more specific.

Ultimately, the basic rules should be very open and adaptable, which is why I think OW's Aptitude system would be awesome for something like that.

PS: Apologies for the delay in my response

Battle Sisters in TT have WS3 BS4 S3 T3 W1 A1

Guardsmen have WS3 BS3 S3 T3 W1 A1

I'm just sayin'.

Just sayin' we should look to the rules of a poorly balanced game to inform design decisions in a related-in-setting-only game.

That's what you're just sayin'.

I dunno, I think the TT stats are actually a fairly good starting point, seeing as they are the single-one game that at least aims to provide any and all factions with an equal footing in the arena...

What bogi_khaosa is missing is that Battle Sisters in TT are not so much defined by their primary statline, but by the fact that they are wielding S4 AP5 bolters and 4+ power armour, same as Marines, in addition to having Faith.

Note, S4 AP5, not S3 AP5, which would be the "-33% firepower" bolters they are getting here. Just sayin'.

I dunno, I think the TT stats are actually a fairly good starting point, seeing as they are the single-one game that at least aims to provide any and all factions with an equal footing in the arena...

This is so hilariously wrong. The WH40k is not designed with any semblance of balance as its chief focus. The rules are written to sell as many plastic toy soldiers of whichever army has had the latest codex release as possible. Balance of the different armies is simply not a priority.

I dunno, I think the TT stats are actually a fairly good starting point, seeing as they are the single-one game that at least aims to provide any and all factions with an equal footing in the arena...

What bogi_khaosa is missing is that Battle Sisters in TT are not so much defined by their primary statline, but by the fact that they are wielding S4 AP5 bolters and 4+ power armour, same as Marines, in addition to having Faith.

Note, S4 AP5, not S3 AP5, which would be the "-33% firepower" bolters they are getting here. Just sayin'.

Umm... Powered armor is 3+ but I guess I'm quibbling . Space marines are superior on an individual lvl to the Sisters but the Sisters faith also is a potent weapon. The Stat line differences are important though because the Space marine will cause more wounds (4 S) and take less (4T) than the Sister. Addtitionally, The Astartes "Know no fear" rule means they cannot be wiped out by a poor Morale roll whereas the sisters can. I've always thought that the Idea that the Sisters would think they could "Wipe out" a Renegade chapter w/o a LOT of help was somewhat boastful! Back on topic though, I've mentioned before; If you want "Tabletop Marines" it would simply mean that their Stats for Strength and Toughness would start at 42 and progress up to 60 rather than the 22 to 40 of of starting DH Characters. Their other abilities are handled by talents that already exist within the game. This interpretation of "Unnatural characteristic" Would simply allow the creature to exceed human norms. Oddly enough, though not quite mechanically the same the BC/OW versions of this trait end up working this way in practice.

Addressing the original question (did not read all the comments):

I don't mind the approach the 1e systems took, with each focusing on a different aspect of the game world. They could do the same in 2e, but keep the experience variance in accordance with each other rather than each supplement vary too much to make it a headache.

In essence:

Acolytes of the Inquisition hitting so and so experience would be equivocal to a Space Marine, who starts off higher, but both a 2e Dark Heresy and 2e Deathwatch having the same -baseline- ruleset to make the experience offset useable to gms.

Otherwise, I'm all for books to add to the setting rather than making it hard to incorporate all the elements together.

"Division is strength. Strength in Division" afterall

This is so hilariously wrong. The WH40k is not designed with any semblance of balance as its chief focus. The rules are written to sell as many plastic toy soldiers of whichever army has had the latest codex release as possible. Balance of the different armies is simply not a priority.

I wouldn't claim that they got the balance down perfectly (there is a notable tendency for "codex creep", and undoubtedly there are cases of armies perceived as "top tier" or "not competitive"), but still ... I would suspect that those are unintentional side-effects of an ongoing process. Maybe that is a bit naive of me, but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Umm... Powered armor is 3+ but I guess I'm quibbling .

Nghh ... no, you are quite right in pointing this out. My mistake! But you get the idea.

The Stat line differences are important though because the Space marine will cause more wounds (4 S) and take less (4T) than the Sister.

And I would like this to be represented in any RPG rules as well. However, two important things:

- this difference in causing wounds is limited to melee combat

- whilst being more resilient, they are still not invulnerable, even against lasguns (yet here, try shooting a DW Marine with a "civilian" bolter and see what happens)

I've always thought that the Idea that the Sisters would think they could "Wipe out" a Renegade chapter w/o a LOT of help was somewhat boastful!

Yet that is what the material claims - and not even just the Sisters' own codices, but both the Index Astartes article on Renegade Space Marines, as well as Andy Hoare's Ordo Hereticus Strike Force list (though the latter is admittedly "just" a Citadel Journal article).

How well do you know the Sisters' fluff as written by Games Workshop, and how much was your interpretation of Space Marines affected by licensed products such as novels or computer games? This is probably the biggest issue in that sub-debate - that we all perceive these factions and their capabilities differently, and how, ultimately, the most popular faction seems to enjoy an advantage not because this is how it was conceived, but simply because it is more popular and is thus afforded a greater degree of "epicness" in outsourced interpretations.

That's why I've considered looking to the tabletop - it foregoes the aforementioned "plot armour" that is afforded to the "isolated" portrayals of the various factions in the numerous licensed media, whilst still fitting to the fluff propagated in at least part of the books. Of course, it all remains a matter of preferences, but for a Unified Ruleset, we may just as well look to another Unified Ruleset for 40k already in existence, as flawed as it may be.

I don't mind the approach the 1e systems took, with each focusing on a different aspect of the game world. They could do the same in 2e, but keep the experience variance in accordance with each other rather than each supplement vary too much to make it a headache.

That would be a way to do it, too. The tricky thing would be to ensure that (aside from equipment availability, which should not be too difficult if DH2 Acolytes start out as street characters) there is no crazy gap in how the characters differ in terms of skills and talents once operating on the same "tier".

It would thus be prudent to come up with a list of general talents/traits (used by everyone) and keep specialised stuff as limited as possible. In other words, no such thing as Squad Modes - or rather, if you do include them, also make them available for IG squads, or well-teamed Acolytes. It might not even have to affect the entire party, but rather a spiritual expansion of the "Double Team" talent in that it would only affect those characters who spent time training such manoeuvres (= purchased the talent for XP).

The same goes for psychic powers, etc. Now that the system has went through multiple stages of evolution, hopefully the designers can settle on one that works so well it'd make future modifications unnecessary?

Yet that is what the material claims - and not even just the Sisters' own codices, but both the Index Astartes article on Renegade Space Marines, as well as Andy Hoare's Ordo Hereticus Strike Force list (though the latter is admittedly "just" a Citadel Journal article).

How well do you know the Sisters' fluff as written by Games Workshop, and how much was your interpretation of Space Marines affected by licensed products such as novels or computer games? This is probably the biggest issue in that sub-debate - that we all perceive these factions and their capabilities differently, and how, ultimately, the most popular faction seems to enjoy an advantage not because this is how it was conceived, but simply because it is more popular and is thus afforded a greater degree of "epicness" in outsourced interpretations.

That's why I've considered looking to the tabletop - it foregoes the aforementioned "plot armour" that is afforded to the "isolated" portrayals of the various factions in the numerous licensed media, whilst still fitting to the fluff propagated in at least part of the books. Of course, it all remains a matter of preferences, but for a Unified Ruleset, we may just as well look to another Unified Ruleset for 40k already in existence, as flawed as it may be.

I don't mind the approach the 1e systems took, with each focusing on a different aspect of the game world. They could do the same in 2e, but keep the experience variance in accordance with each other rather than each supplement vary too much to make it a headache.

That would be a way to do it, too. The tricky thing would be to ensure that (aside from equipment availability, which should not be too difficult if DH2 Acolytes start out as street characters) there is no crazy gap in how the characters differ in terms of skills and talents once operating on the same "tier".

It would thus be prudent to come up with a list of general talents/traits (used by everyone) and keep specialised stuff as limited as possible. In other words, no such thing as Squad Modes - or rather, if you do include them, also make them available for IG squads, or well-teamed Acolytes. It might not even have to affect the entire party, but rather a spiritual expansion of the "Double Team" talent in that it would only affect those characters who spent time training such manoeuvres (= purchased the talent for XP).

The same goes for psychic powers, etc. Now that the system has went through multiple stages of evolution, hopefully the designers can settle on one that works so well it'd make future modifications unnecessary?

I confess that I know the Sisters the least of any of the Imperial Codexes. I have seen them on tabletop though and perhaps they were not well played but I was not particularly impressed. That being said I generally agree with you. I would have preferred the scaling of Space marines to be closer to that of tabletop. (As I illustrated mathmatically above.) The Space Marines were the SECOND best thing the Emperor himself could come up with so they should be pretty epic but; They are still, At their core, human (Unlike the Primarchs which were genetically modified clones essentially.) They should not be impossible to kill with a Lasgun since it's done all the time on tabletop. I believe this problem is easily houseruled away by eliminating toughness soak for damage though. For a Unified system I would agree that the 'base' system should be as stripped down as possible. Basically a "Dark heresy" level 1 game with characters produced being "normal" humans. Expansions could then cover Space marines, Advanced combat modes etc.

I believe this problem is easily houseruled away by eliminating toughness soak for damage though.

Agreed.

Basically a "Dark heresy" level 1 game with characters produced being "normal" humans. Expansions could then cover Space marines, Advanced combat modes etc.

Hmmh, I'd still like to see Marines in that core game simply because they are pretty much the poster boys of 40k and, in some way, define the setting. Plus, there's a number of human character archetypes that I'd consider both too powerful for a DH-style game as well as close enough to Marine characters to allow for combined deployment in a campaign. Then again, perhaps these archetypes would not fit your definition of a "normal" human anymore - depending on how you meant this?

It probably depends on what sort of game we would like a unified ruleset to support straight out of the core book! And that might be a difficult choice to make indeed...

Off the top of my head, I might like to aim for a range of the most iconic character types, even of different "power levels", and just leave it to the GM whether they want to combine them into a single game or draft a campaign around specific character types. So that the core rulebook could basically support, for example, both an Only War-style game as well as a Marine campaign ... with supplements simply expanding on these basics and adding more cool stuff (similar to how you already had, say, the Arbitrator in the DH core book, who later on got the Book of Judgement supplement).

Alternatively, instead of ditching toughness soak, they could just add a line saying that Penetration values ignore Toughness soak. It would allow TB soak to still be handy against a range of primitive and low impact weapons (knives, stub weapons, fall damage, etc).

I'll probably never adapt to the idea that a lasgun blast could be neutralised by someone's bare skin just because that weapon has not been given any Pen, but that's probably a matter of how one interprets Toughness, Wounds and Crits to tie into each other ...

Anyways, do you mean that any weapon with Pen would ignore all TB? Or that a weapon with Pen would ignore as much TB as it has Pen? Or that AP and TB are added together and then counted against Pen, with the remaining Damage spilling over as an actual injury?

This has been a suggestion I've advocated for a lot. To speed up combat, a good way to improve the current system would be to have a single soak value, TB+AP, with Pen applying to it as it currently does to AP.

CPS's method, or allowing Pen to count against AP and TB seperately would both be viable options. I lean much closer to CPS' suggestion above currently in our theory-vacuum.

I think taking some Savage Worlds inspiration can't hurt. I believe this is similar to how Inquisitor handles it, too, to a minor extent.

Remove TB's role as damage soak entirely, and instead do things like this; after reducing damage by armour, if the resulting value is below your TB, it deals fatigue damage (or nothing if you prefer it that way). If it equals to or exceeds your TB, take one wound. If it equals or exceeds your TBx2, take two wounds. If it equals or exceeds your TBx3, take three wounds. Etc.

Obviously this would require a close examination of how damage values interact with these rules, but I think it's a better way to handle things than TB soak. It's also very easy to adjust lethality based on the amount of wounds you let people have. Plus, you can pretty easily bolt on critical wound tables, just, say, require a roll on one if you take 3 wounds or more from the one attack.

EDIT: Forgot to specify too overtly; this is intended to work with drastically lower wound amounts than the current 40kRPG systems give you.

While I do like CPS's idea, I think Tom Cruise's idea is more realistic. Both ideas have their advantages. While one could just get rid of Toughness altogether, it would essentially weaken the usefulness of the stat considerably. I would lean more toward using toughness bonus for shrugging off critical effects in favor of gaining fatigue.

One thing is for certain and I think most of us could agree that TB soak makes no sense at all.

While I do like CPS's idea, I think Tom Cruise's idea is more realistic. Both ideas have their advantages. While one could just get rid of Toughness altogether, it would essentially weaken the usefulness of the stat considerably. I would lean more toward using toughness bonus for shrugging off critical effects in favor of gaining fatigue.

One thing is for certain and I think most of us could agree that TB soak makes no sense at all.

It only weakens the ability to take damage which I think is already overblown. If one doesn't wish to ignore it's "soak" ability than I would suggest the idea that toughness can only reduce damage to a minimum of 1 point. (Not my Idea to be fair but still good one.) This would allow weapons to still "get lucky" and find a joint or an eye slot in that powered armor!

Hmmm... And what about increasing the damage of the weapons? Say, an autogun would do some 2D10+5 damage instead of the 1D10+3. And a plasma gun would do 3D10+40 for example.

If the guns were did more damage, it would have the same effect as just simply doing away with TB soak. I'm not opposed to just removing TB soak altogether either.

I really think that when considering rules, we should take an objective approach.

Example:

Does TB soak really lend anything important to the game or is it an unnecessary addition?

1. If removed, TB soak becomes irrelevant if weapon damage is reduced.

2. If keeping TB, it becomes irrelevant if weapon damage happens to increase.

3. Many consider it to be unrealistic.

4. It's just one more calculation to make.

Considering these potentialities, why even have TB soak damage?

The only benefit to keeping it that I can see is if it relates to Tom Cruises's idea.