Yeah, I'm totally on board with you there. The issue is that making it so RF is more potent on high DV creatures has pretty severe ripple effects when it comes to truly tough fuckers like Monstrous Creatures.
Unnatural Characteristics
Yeah, I'm totally on board with you there. The issue is that making it so RF is more potent on high DV creatures has pretty severe ripple effects when it comes to truly tough fuckers like Monstrous Creatures.
You will laugh, but on the TT, a Guardsman can kill any Monstrous Creature (bar the Wraithlord, the Wraithknight and the Great Unclean One) with his Lasgun. Provided that he can stuff enough hits into it (he needs some ~80 to kill a Carnifex).
Maybe Righteous Fury should cause +1D5 Damage (if the shot went through the target's DV) or 1D5 Wounds (if the target's DV was too high)? It would be still just a minor annoyance to a Carnifex (who has some 60 Wounds to burn) but a Space Marine would feel it (as he has only 20 Wounds IIRC).
Why have more and more complicated special rules when you can just simplify the application of one rule and achieve the goal. Reducing Unnatural Toughness would allow a similar outcome. In the case of a Guardsman vs my modified Space Marine, the Marine ignores a standard lasgun hit (RF notwithstanding) but can be hurt by a lasgun in overload mode. I expect you cold retool the carnifex similarly (I don't have the stats for carnifexes).
In this way, you replicate the ability of the basic Guardsman to harm Monstrous Creatures while adding the dynamics of tactical choice and the dramatic tension of the desperate guardsman overloading his lasgun to take down the gigantic horror.
I expect you cold retool the carnifex similarly (I don't have the stats for carnifexes).
No way. A Carnifex has a TB of 18, AV10 (total DV 28) and 100 Wounds. Even with halved TB it has a total DV of 19. A lasgun on overcharge can deal 17 points of damage at maximum against this (15 real damage and 2 penetration)...
The problem with decreasing defense capabilities is that certain weapons in the armoury are already good at taking out the heavy targets, and the changes will boost their damage output too. So maybe you will throw a bone to the lasgun guy, but it will be a blessing from heavens for the autocannon guy - even though this wasn't the intention of the change at all.
Edited by AtoMakiSo what ? Do you really expect a Lasgun to hurt a Carnifex in any way ?
So what ? Do you really expect a Lasgun to hurt a Carnifex in any way ?
I'm a couple of editions behind on my Tyranid codex, but based on them having T6, yes. Which just reinforces my point...
Edited by LuciusTSo what ? Do you really expect a Lasgun to hurt a Carnifex in any way ?
If we go with tabletop standards, then 80 lasgun shots should kill a Carnifex. And I'm, like, 105% serious here
.
Basing anything on the tabletop games is sort of silly. Tabletop has never been a very accurate representation of the fluff. They are also different games.
Carnifexes are almost completely invulnerable to Lasguns in fluff. Even Plasma can bounce off their hides, and you need to shoot them right in the eyes for it to work.
Basing anything on the tabletop games is sort of silly. Tabletop has never been a very accurate representation of the fluff. They are also different games.
I did say mine was a controversial position, but given that 40K RP is a game, in which our characters should be able to overcome challenges within the rules and not a novel in which they overcome them by plot and the Rule of Cool, I choose to take my inspiration from the rules for the other version of the game.
Basing anything on the tabletop games is sort of silly. Tabletop has never been a very accurate representation of the fluff. They are also different games.
I did say mine was a controversial position, but given that 40K RP is a game, in which our characters should be able to overcome challenges within the rules and not a novel in which they overcome them by plot and the Rule of Cool, I choose to take my inspiration from the rules for the other version of the game.
A version in which a Greater Demon with his twelve meters axe from DOOM had just 16.6 % more capacity to hurt an human after hittin him than a Space marine with his fist, who was at the same time just 33% stronger than a IG recruit.
It's ok for tabletop game and to make it balanced and funny, but the fluff is the inspiration a RPG game needs to have, from my point of view.
Overcome challenges yes. Succeed at anything? No.
Acolytes would never be able to take down a carnifex, barring amazing weaponry and a lot of luck.
Wheras by the rules, 100 guardsmen with Lasguns will take one down, and rather easily too, thanks to RF ping.
It's ok for tabletop game and to make it balanced and funny, but the fluff is the inspiration a RPG game needs to have, from my point of view.
The fluff for Space Marines is 50% Indestructible God of War and 50% Buffed Guardsman.
In closing, I have played with my suggested rule for a bit now... and if you've played Ogryn or fought against regular Ork Boyz in Only War, so have you... and I find it makes a better game.
Your millage may vary, but I wanted to toss the idea out there.
Basing anything on the tabletop games is sort of silly. Tabletop has never been a very accurate representation of the fluff. They are also different games.
I did say mine was a controversial position, but given that 40K RP is a game, in which our characters should be able to overcome challenges within the rules and not a novel in which they overcome them by plot and the Rule of Cool, I choose to take my inspiration from the rules for the other version of the game.
This is a pretty good encapsulation of my dissatisfaction with the beta. The focus has been on codifying anything and everything and the community pushed back on a lot of the changes toward the Rule of Cool. I want DH2 to be a game where Rule of Cool rules and to move away from the fiddly number bits of DH1, but sadly, that doesn't seem to be the direction FFG is taking the game.
I think someone should really establish if Space Marines are just augmented normal humans or real meta-humans. In the first case, I'm perfectly OK with Unnatural Toughness (2) but then your Space Marines are like the more important characters of the Gears of War series: they are just tougher, meaner grunts with 50% more grit and badass - but at the end of the day, they are nothing very special.
I would like
The one that spits acid.
For anyone who doesn't know why Space Marines are better than other humans:
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Creation_of_a_Space_Marine
Yes, Space Marines will unbalance a game if he's charging at your level 1 acolytes. THEY ARE GOING TO DIE
But I'd like to see any group of acolytes object to Space Marines supporting them when confronted with the worst the galaxy has to throw at them.
Who would you rather have between you and a rampaging Carnifex?
(1)An Adept with a laspistol and quill?
Or (2) a Deathwatch Space Marine with bolt gun, bolt pistol, monoblade combat knife, chainsword, 3 frag and two krak grenades, and fully armoured in power armour?
We could argue forever about how strong Space Marines are; the various fluff sources support all kinds of power levels. I think it's more constructive to look at what makes for a more enjoyable game that scales better. And in this case, I think the suggestion in the OP is great.
QFT. Though it of course comes down to a matter of preferences.
Specifically because there is fluff for each of the many different interpretations, we also have many, many fans preferring one version over another - and some of them probably don't mind the reduced balance or compatibility as long as they get their Movie Marines. That's why we have Deathwatch, and though personally I would have liked a uniform and consistent ruleset more, I'm very certain DW has a lot of fans who like it because it focuses on the exaggerated form of Astartes.
Imperial Assassins are not normal humans. They are genetically augmented, just like Space Marines.
I've seen this thrown around a few times now, but where do people actually get this from? Some Black Library book? I've not seen anything in this regard in GW's own material, and in fact their profile in Inquisitor pretty much point to the opposite - that just like GW's version of Sisters they are really just very, very well trained and equipped.
Basing anything on the tabletop games is sort of silly. Tabletop has never been a very accurate representation of the fluff. They are also different games.
And yet the fluff has been built around the games, and not the other way around. The "problem" is that there are now so many different writers with so many different ideas that we do no longer have the fluff, but rather many fluffs - and I assure you, there is sufficient background for the tabletop version, too. In fact, that's what I "grew up" with, and why I have such a problem getting used to the "beefed up" interpretations.
What would you say if, for example, I can name you a Codex source with a very extensive piece of fluff on Marine power armour, which replicates and "confirms" the percentile chance of a tabletop Guardsman to incapacitate a Marine with his lasgun? And that this is also replicated in the rules for GW's Inquisitor game?
Ultimately, the "official policy" is that we can cherrypick whatever version of the fluff we prefer, but I wouldn't completely ignore GW's own writings just because, over the years, a dozen freelancing Black Library authors felt they had to one-up each other in writing ever more epic stories about the Astartes. The funny thing is even the GW designers started joking about this tendency, in case you've listened to the podcast with Jes Goodwin.
I don't see why we need unnaturals anyway. Breaking 100 for characteristics isn't that catastrophic, a Squiggoth SHOULD by all means be auto-passing what's considered a challenging test for a human. BS and WS are the only characteristics where values over 100 really break things, but they have no real need to go that high anyway.
I both agree and disagree:
Agreeing in that certain types of characters or creatures have a "right" to have their superior characteristic acknowledged as such and provide the appropriate bonus to a test.
Disagreeing in that I don't feel the need to "breaking" the 100 scale - I would simply reduce the gap between the various characters and creatures, as I feel they currently "hog" too much of the range. This way, even superior characters or creatures still have a chance to fail, depending on the difficulty of the test.
As I've proposed elsewhere:
- make normal humans start at around ~30
- characteristics advances are 5 x +3, having them cap out at 45
- Marines have Strength and Toughness start at ~50
- these characteristics advances are 5 x +2, having them cap out at 60
No need for Unnatural Traits. It always bothered me how in some ways they break the system, whilst in others not actually representing that their owner is really a lot better at something.
Edited by LynataIn the Inquisitor game from Games Workshop:
Guardsmen were about 60 for Strength and toughness.
Other humans were about 40 to 50 Strength and Toughness.
Space Marines were 100 Strength (120 in power armour) and 80 Toughness.
People considered Inquisitor to ba an accurate representation of a true Space Marine.
Imperial Assassins are not normal humans. They are genetically augmented, just like Space Marines.
I've seen this thrown around a few times now, but where do people actually get this from? Some Black Library book? I've not seen anything in this regard in GW's own material, and in fact their profile in Inquisitor pretty much point to the opposite - that just like GW's version of Sisters they are really just very, very well trained and equipped.
It is from the old TT Rogue Trader book. Also it is briefly mentioned in one of the Black Library Horus heresy novels (in connection of the Assassin who slayed Konrad Curze).
In the Inquisitor game from Games Workshop:
Guardsmen were about 60 for Strength and toughness.
Other humans were about 40 to 50 Strength and Toughness.
Space Marines were 100 Strength (120 in power armour) and 80 Toughness.
People considered Inquisitor to ba an accurate representation of a true Space Marine.
Strength 200, Toughness 150, actually.
What makes Inquisitor still work better in terms of Toughness is that it doesn't make the Space Marine invulnerable against damage, it just makes him reduce the level of injury he takes. He still takes an injury, though, it'll just not be as much of a problem as for the normal human next to him. But keep on shooting and he'll go down anyways.
I still don't think we need to go above the 100, anyways. It is certainly a valid option - and test modifiers would allow for suitable challenges even at such high characteristic levels - but I'd prefer numbers between 1 and 100 just because it looks more systematic, and because then we wouldn't need to negate high numbers with high modifiers just to achieve the same result.
The disadvantage of my approach is, of course, that a mere +2 or +3 per advancement may not feel like much ... depending on how much you think a character should actually be able to improve.
It is from the old TT Rogue Trader book. Also it is briefly mentioned in one of the Black Library Horus heresy novels (in connection of the Assassin who slayed Konrad Curze).
Aha! Thanks. Though, reading up on it, Rogue Trader does not mention genetical enhancements at all - "only" psychic implants to improve their willpower, and acoustic muscle stimulation to use polymorphine. And their profile is, in fact, slightly worse than that of a human "Minor Hero" of the Imperial Army.
So this seems to be just another of those new ideas thrown around in the HH novels?
I'd prefer to get rid of the whole Unnatural characteristic stuff and instead increase characteristic values by ~ +5 per +1 Unnatural Characteristic.
So a Space Marine in this example would get around +20 on Toughness and Strength instead of Unnatural characteristic (+4).
This would bring him to an average 30+11+20 = 61 on these characteristic at his char generation and a max. of 81 on average.
In the Inquisitor game from Games Workshop:
Guardsmen were about 60 for Strength and toughness.
Other humans were about 40 to 50 Strength and Toughness.
Space Marines were 100 Strength (120 in power armour) and 80 Toughness.
People considered Inquisitor to ba an accurate representation of a true Space Marine.
Strength 200, Toughness 150, actually.
What makes Inquisitor still work better in terms of Toughness is that it doesn't make the Space Marine invulnerable against damage, it just makes him reduce the level of injury he takes. He still takes an injury, though, it'll just not be as much of a problem as for the normal human next to him. But keep on shooting and he'll go down anyways.
I still don't think we need to go above the 100, anyways. It is certainly a valid option - and test modifiers would allow for suitable challenges even at such high characteristic levels - but I'd prefer numbers between 1 and 100 just because it looks more systematic, and because then we wouldn't need to negate high numbers with high modifiers just to achieve the same result.
The disadvantage of my approach is, of course, that a mere +2 or +3 per advancement may not feel like much ... depending on how much you think a character should actually be able to improve.
It is from the old TT Rogue Trader book. Also it is briefly mentioned in one of the Black Library Horus heresy novels (in connection of the Assassin who slayed Konrad Curze).
Aha! Thanks. Though, reading up on it, Rogue Trader does not mention genetical enhancements at all - "only" psychic implants to improve their willpower, and acoustic muscle stimulation to use polymorphine. And their profile is, in fact, slightly worse than that of a human "Minor Hero" of the Imperial Army.
So this seems to be just another of those new ideas thrown around in the HH novels?
Oops! In my defiance I'm tired after a stressful day. Consider me happily corrected.
240/150? I guess people should stop whining then as a TRUE Space Marine should be far more deadly. Strength 120 and Toughness 75 to bring him into FFG game level without being Unnatural. I'd be happy with that.
Edited by TK GhostOops! In my defiance I'm tired after a stressful day. Consider me happily corrected.
240/150? I guess people should stop whining then as a TRUE Space Marine should be far more deadly. Strength 120 and Toughness 75 to bring him into FFG game level without being Unnatural. I'd be happy with that.
No worries, it's easy to forget such numbers if one isn't constantly using them.
I'd say Marines in these RPGs are actually the more deadly ones, just because of how Toughness works around here as opposed to Inquisitor. Yes, Strength 200 means a Space Marine would do about +14 damage more in close combat, but it's much easier to just gun him down even with a humble las- or autogun before he reaches you. Their ranged combat survivability is much lower, which I personally think fits better to 40k, where the weapons should be more terrifying than whoever wields them.
I feel this also makes them more "balanced" in a party with normal people, since the latter can wield the very same guns and so deal the same amount of damage. The Space Marine simply becomes a monster in close combat. That's cool - specialities are fine, as long as nobody dominates an entire segment of the game (such as being a lot better in combat in general , which I feel is the case with DW or BC Marines).