Unless your GM hates you or you're in special circumstances, you will be fighting 1 psyker for every dozen regular mooks armed with melee weapons or guns

Well presumably if one of the players wants to play an untouchable, the GM will lovingly craft situations in which that is rather helpful.

Things like this should perhaps be seen as an 'opportunity' by the GM.

(And honestly, lore wise, if the Inquisitor has a Blank in his service, he's probably going to want to send that character somewhere useful.)

That's 100% true.

I just don't agree with that based on my personal experiences of playing an untouchable in DH1 for over a year, and now remaking that character to test the DH2 beta (I felt it was the best way to make a comparison).

The issue is often that mooks are a negligible threat, but deamons and psykers can be devastating.

The only problem I can see with making the pariah penalty go for the whole group is that there may be a lot of meta pressure on a player not to play one because it hurts the rest of the party (there is already some debate over whether its fair to play one if it limits other people who would want to play a psyker). This kind of thing can quickly turn from the players characters being angry at the untouchable to the other players being angry at the player for choosing to be an untouchable. You might not care about that kind of dynamic, but I don't think it makes for a good experience in game however accurate to the fluff it may be.

I just don't agree with that based on my personal experiences of playing an untouchable in DH1 for over a year, and now remaking that character to test the DH2 beta (I felt it was the best way to make a comparison).

The issue is often that mooks are a negligible threat, but deamons and psykers can be devastating.

The only problem I can see with making the pariah penalty go for the whole group is that there may be a lot of meta pressure on a player not to play one because it hurts the rest of the party (there is already some debate over whether its fair to play one if it limits other people who would want to play a psyker). This kind of thing can quickly turn from the players characters being angry at the untouchable to the other players being angry at the player for choosing to be an untouchable. You might not care about that kind of dynamic, but I don't think it makes for a good experience in game however accurate to the fluff it may be.

That's why I recommend Untouchables be reserved for (but not limited to) advanced groups of role players. They can typically find creative ways to have fun with this class while not getting upset with the challenges that Untouchables can cause.

Daemons and Psykers are still devastating, even with an Untouchable in the party. A good GM, like the one I had, will shape the circumstances so that there will still be a challenge to the party regardless of what you bring to the fight. In the final boss fight of our campaign, we ended up fighting the Burning Princess, who had a band of cultists trying to protect her. Rather than the fight being EZ mode where my Untouchable waltzed up to the Princess and slapped her around (which probably would have happened if we'd had a bad GM), it was instead a desperate brawl by the other members of the party to protect me and clear a path through the cultists while the Princess was blowing **** up all around us. Ultimately, even once I managed to reach her, she ended up swatting me with a telekinetically thrown cogitator, and I had to burn a fate point to survive. The princess got her head blown off by a lucky crit from our long-las wielding Tech-Priest in the next round, but by that point half the party was down.

The point I'm driving at is that the assertion that Untouchables with psychic immunity completely invalidate battles with psykers and/or daemons is overblown. In their current incarnation, they actually do do that; the psi-rating ability that can be stacked is incredibly overpowered late-game and might as well be an auto-win button against Psykers. Untouchables with abilities as I've described them on page 1, however, does not make then an auto-win button so much as it makes them a secret weapon against a Psykers. But that should be no problem for a decent GM.

Regarding meta-pressure. Tell that to Psykers, who routinely kill themselves and/or the entire party every time they use a power. The forums aren't littered with a dozen "how do I kill Untouchables/Untouchables are ruining my campaign" threads. There are a dozen anti-psyker threads, though. There is always going to be meta-pressure in any party.

Daemons and Psykers are still devastating, even with an Untouchable in the party. A good GM, like the one I had, will shape the circumstances so that there will still be a challenge to the party regardless of what you bring to the fight. In the final boss fight of our campaign, we ended up fighting the Burning Princess, who had a band of cultists trying to protect her. Rather than the fight being EZ mode where my Untouchable waltzed up to the Princess and slapped her around (which probably would have happened if we'd had a bad GM), it was instead a desperate brawl by the other members of the party to protect me and clear a path through the cultists while the Princess was blowing **** up all around us. Ultimately, even once I managed to reach her, she ended up swatting me with a telekinetically thrown cogitator, and I had to burn a fate point to survive. The princess got her head blown off by a lucky crit from our long-las wielding Tech-Priest in the next round, but by that point half the party was down.

The point I'm driving at is that the assertion that Untouchables with psychic immunity completely invalidate battles with psykers and/or daemons is overblown. In their current incarnation, they actually do do that; the psi-rating ability that can be stacked is incredibly overpowered late-game and might as well be an auto-win button against Psykers. Untouchables with abilities as I've described them on page 1, however, does not make then an auto-win button so much as it makes them a secret weapon against a Psykers. But that should be no problem for a decent GM.

Regarding meta-pressure. Tell that to Psykers, who routinely kill themselves and/or the entire party every time they use a power. The forums aren't littered with a dozen "how do I kill Untouchables/Untouchables are ruining my campaign" threads. There are a dozen anti-psyker threads, though. There is always going to be meta-pressure in any party.

Please allow me to demonstrate the point above with a picture:

EDIT: aaand, of course, the link was broke. Here is the correct link: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html

The forums aren't littered with a dozen "how do I kill Untouchables/Untouchables are ruining my campaign" threads.

I must add that this is the fault of the platform and not the power. GMs should feel lucky that the players are stuck with the lowly human race. I've seen the Untouchable powers on a reliable and powerful non-human platform, and believe me, it isn't a delightful sight.

wut? That actually sounds kind of hilarious. Details?

I really don't care for your constant insinuation that I must be a terrible GM if I have a different opinion from you.

I also never said that they invalidated psykers, I said they made PC psykers have a harder time (something I'm personally a bit on the 'cry me a river' front about, but I've seen this kind of discussion before).

I'm on board with most of what you say. I just disagree on the cost. Now we have 900xp at character gen it wouldnt be unrealistic just to raise the cost of the elite advance further.

I apologize. I wasn't trying to pass judgement on anyone's GM prowess. The point that I was trying to make, is that there are many solutions to any sort of challenge that having an Untouchable in the party can present.

The cost of the class frankly does not matter to me, so long as it's purchasable at character creation.

wut? That actually sounds kind of hilarious. Details?

In our custom setting, we have a playable xeno race called Savages. These Savages are natural "psychic blanks" but some of them are "untouchables". As far as the game mechanics go, this race works like a ballistic missile: you point somewhere and the Savage will get there and wreck face. They have high Strength, high Agility, Unnatural Strength (4), Unnatural Agility (4), cheap Strength/Agility Advances, cheap Acrobatics/Athletics/Dodge/Navigate/Survival/Stealth Advances an Talents like Wall Walk and Powerful Leap (the former is self-explanatory, the later gives a x5 multiplier to all jump distances). So guess what: a Savage Untouchable is like a huge "Bend over!" sign to any and all psykers, including daemons. And ain't no henchman will protect you against this!

It sounds like they're anti-everything, rather than just anti-psyker with that beastly stat-line.

I had always kind of wanted to face-off against some Untouchable NPC's, but our GM was kind of skittish about it. The psyker in our party was an aggressive munchkin and had a tendency to throw tantrums, so.

It sounds like they're anti-everything, rather than just anti-psyker with that beastly stat-line.

I had always kind of wanted to face-off against some Untouchable NPC's, but our GM was kind of skittish about it. The psyker in our party was an aggressive munchkin and had a tendency to throw tantrums, so.

It sounds like there's a story in there.

Though one of the best ways to throw challenges at players is perhaps through opponents using 'sensible adaptation'-- basically the GM determining what your enemies would do to try to counter you with the resources at their disposal.

If it's plausible and internally consistent, players may tend to enjoy it with relatively little annoyance.

Yeah, I mean even if your enemies couldn't get hold of an untouchable the big bad might certainly invest in a nullrod or something if he knows some crazy psyker is coming after him.

My sympathies though, I've definately known players like that...

Being a one for background material, here are some facts about Untouchables:

(1) They make everyone around them uneasy so should have a negative Fellowship modifier.

(2) They are immune to psychic powers. Comparable to walking Null Rods.

(3) Daemons can't see them. Others who don't "see" in the "natural" manner can't see them.

(4) Some, Blanks, block out psychic effects in an area.

Sources:

In Eisenhorn, the Alizebeth Bequin prevented the Inquisitor from using his Telepathy when she was nearby. Even though she wasn't the target. I'm also certain she made him invisible to a daemonhost.

In Fear to Tread there was a woman who managed to make some Blood Angels invisible to daemons when they stayed near her.

In Eisenhorn, the Alizebeth Bequin prevented the Inquisitor from using his Telepathy when she was nearby.

I'm pretty sure that Elizabeth was a Pariah and not an Untouchable.

I'm pretty sure that "pariah" and "untouchable" are just different terms for a psychic blank.

I'm pretty sure that "pariah" and "untouchable" are just different terms for a psychic blank.

Again, this is where fluff gets wooley and creates our problem.

Are 'Blanks, 'Untouchables' and 'Pariahs' the same thing, or a variation on the pariah gene. Specifically, given that they are shown as having varying power levels between them, are they just different stages of power representing the same abilities manifesting to different degrees or is the difference in power level innate.

Personally I don't think this has ever been clarified by anything close to an official source.

I'm pretty sure that "pariah" and "untouchable" are just different terms for a psychic blank.

Again, this is where fluff gets wooley and creates our problem.

Are 'Blanks, 'Untouchables' and 'Pariahs' the same thing, or a variation on the pariah gene. Specifically, given that they are shown as having varying power levels between them, are they just different stages of power representing the same abilities manifesting to different degrees or is the difference in power level innate.

Personally I don't think this has ever been clarified by anything close to an official source.

From my understanding, a Blank and an Untouchable are the same thing while a Pariah is considered an extremely powerful sort of off the scale type of Untouchable. It's sort of similar to the difference between regular space marines and Primarchs.

I'm pretty sure that "pariah" and "untouchable" are just different terms for a psychic blank.

Again, this is where fluff gets wooley and creates our problem.

Are 'Blanks, 'Untouchables' and 'Pariahs' the same thing, or a variation on the pariah gene. Specifically, given that they are shown as having varying power levels between them, are they just different stages of power representing the same abilities manifesting to different degrees or is the difference in power level innate.

Personally I don't think this has ever been clarified by anything close to an official source.

From my understanding a Black and an Untouchable are the same thing while a Pariah is considered an extremely powerful sort of off the scale type of Untouchable. It's sort of similar to the difference between regular space marines and Primarchs.

This is a particularly funny typo. A black and an untouchable are the same thing. Gold.

Yeah, auto correct on the phone. Sucks.