Balodek said: You do understand that they're not excluding the Eldar? And that they can't publish everything all at once? Why would they publish one book with everything you'd need, and then you'd never buy anything from them again. As others have pointed out, there are other books that have Eldar, why would they publish multiple books with the same thing, given the cost of publishing today? It's a bit disingenuous to say you don't understand why they wouldn't give you more choices, then reject out of hand the choices they give you. Why would you exclude Tyranids from your campaign? After all, they are canon, so it makes sense that you really shouldn't be allowed to run a game that doesn't include Tyranids. Tyranids are prominent in the Jericho Reach, Eldar are not, and that is both the answer to your question and the reason your argument is flawed. I think they could easily publish all at once. A sourcebook the size of the corebook could easily cover the factions of the setting. Of course you could sell more content: FFG have already created the precedent of creating their own stuff which is an endless mine. And indeed you shouldn't have to repeat material from book to book; i don't agree it's a good idea and I don't think it would have been necessary. That's a matter of planning. I haven't rejected any of the choices given. I fully intend to buy MoX and I fully expected it to be the kind of book it is because that's the pattern FFG have established. I tihnk you've missed the point i made; it's not that i don't want tyranids it's on the basis of the established premise of the setting. That's why i made the point regarding eldar over chaos. However there is a point to be made when you are choosing to exclude content: the eldar offer more possibilities than the tyranids who are really only good for a limited scope of adventures. Conversely the Eldar are fundamental to the setting in almost every way and not only are they easier to relate to on a personal level, but they can also work with the Imperium as well as against it (the tau also to a lesser degree). We can argue it either way till the cows come home. But every argument has an equal counter argument. The question is: what is the best approach. And yes, I can create my own Eldar (and indeed will), but the point of buying an rpg is that you are paying someone else to do this. And if it's easy for the players to do this, then it should be a doddle for FFG

T Face Eater said: I'm also of the opinion that they made the right decision to keep Eldar out of it. All of the big 40K have their own agenda's and goals. You can write a story that happens to have enough very specific goals that are all forces are involved (like later DoW expansions) but this feels very forced, and the more of **** up warzone a place is already the more likely the Eldar are to stay out of it. Plus of course, of all of the 40K rpgs, RT is far better setting for them than DW, where you are likely to come across all manner of corsairs and even have a chance to have direct dealings with those treacherous skinnies. In DW they'd be just another horde in different looking armour. RT maybe a better fit for your games. THat's your choice. I don't understand how it can ever be the right decision to keep the eldar out of any 40k game. YOU can choose to leave them out, which is entirely fine. But a commercial rpg should give you the choice, not dictate things. All the reasons that people can give that the Eldar shouldn't be in the JR can be countered by other people that think the opposite. So the question then becomes: wouldn't it be better to include more of the official canon and let players choose what they want? I might not want tyrnaids, but i might want eldar. Why does FFG deny me that choice in a game where both are prominent canon elements.

Lightbringer said: I like FFG's approach, personally. If that means fewer Eldar for Deathwatch for the time being, well... it's a price I'm prepared to pay. It's an issue of choice. If they gave you the Eldar stuff but you were happy for the JR to be Eldar free then you can ignore it. If you are in the opposite camp, then it's a lot harder. I have no problem with the multi corebook format for different 'careers'. I do have a problem with the omission of canon material such as Eldar, and also Dark Eldar and Necrons. You can reason it away anyway you please, but the bottom line is that it shouldn't be FFG's call to make that decision for the players. If anything Eldar should replace Chaos in the book; DW are ordos xenos not malleus.

H.B.M.C. said: signoftheserpent said: ...and because they are an integral part of the setting... Except that they're not. The Jericho Reach is the setting for Deathwatch. The Eldar are not integral to that setting. If you're not setting your Deathwatch games in the Jericho Reach (much as we set all our Dark Heresy games in a Sector of our own creation), then you might run into a problem, but the FFG products cater for the setting they've created. So the Eldar aren't around in the Jericho reach just like the Tyranids aren't around in the Koronus Expanse. Mark of the Xenos is a book that provides rules for adversaries and NPC's within the context of the RPG's setting, which in this instance is the Jericho Reach. No Eldar in the Reach (yet), therefore no Eldar in the book. Really not difficult. BYE The Eldar are one of the biggest and oldest (older than Chaos) parts of the setting. Saying they aren't part of the Jericho Reach setting is not smart from a business perspective. FFG can and have designed the JR as they see fit. and we can critique accordingly. So while you can argue they aren't part of the JR, it's rather silly to choose to omit Eldar. Whether it's difficult or not is really not the point.

H.B.M.C. said: The Eldar don't really have a role in the Jericho Reach. Why would they suddenly have loads of different forces there? BYE Loads? Not required. Some, I think so.And to answer the question: because the GM has decreed it so for his game, and because they are an integral part of the setting and uniquely occupy a position (more than the Tau) where they can be both protagonist and antagonist. It makes no sense to me for FFG to limit their - and thus our - options this way.

N0-1_H3r3 said: Full Contents:Thanks.

Can you give a bit more on what the book contains for orks and chaos? Would have liked to see some Eldar.

Is this a crossover book with DW?

Game can be any type (ie characters dictate game, not the other way around IMHO). No xenos though, for the sake of simplicity.

If there were a player group of two, what roles would you pick/recommend?

So what exactly is the story here? What is the great secret of the Storm Wardens? Were they invented by FFG?

Traveller61 said: "Auger reports contact in ancient territory know as U K....." According to Esvidium Games' webpage has it listed available next Tuesday DW Confirmed. List price the same as Creatures Anathema, so expect the same page count. Esdevium are reliable.

ak-73 said: And of course it is rules lawyering too. He can't sell me that a space marine who seeks the most dangerous missions for its team would not seek out trying to complete as many objectives as possible, no matter how fool-hardy. Treating that as two seperate issues is rules-lawyering. Alex Well I don't agree. I think trying to complete as many objectives would be a sensible apprioach, but that's not what the rule says. Going for the most dangerous mission isn't quite the same thing as attempting to complete every objective (which I imagine the kill team would do anyway, only with more consideration to expediency and pragmatism). We will have to agree to disagree for the Greater Good.

Siranui said: Although it's a moot point, as Alex has pointed out; RAW does indeed state that beyond talk of missions, the marine is insistent on putting the squad very much in harms way. So it's rules lawyering when I make a point, but when someone else advocates following the rule as written (with respect to going where the fighting is thickest) then it's playing properly and not being a munchkin rulesmonger? If the marine isn't squad leader (which shuts down the curse somewhat, unless the marine wants to be obstructive and insubordinate which woudl seem even more out of sorts than being cursed for a marine) then how will his curse actually manifest? Sure the player can have his character throw hissy fits and be obstructuve but in practical terms what will that achieve other than potentially pissing off the other players because either he gets his way or he acequiesces to what the SL has ordered. There is no outcoem to this effect, it doesn't serve a purpose other than to just annoy the players.

Narkasis Broon said: Sots, without even getting into the fact that it is just as much following the rules to write two possible missions one of which is obviously insanely hard AK's post is enough where the fighting is thickest. that means no sneaking around the battle, no going in the back way to avoid sentries, no retreat, EVER, no matter the circumstances. If you aren't in the thick of battle you aren't living up to your curse. I think thats pretty bad for a first level primarchs curse. in fact as a GM I would have to be very careful if I had someone in my party with that curse. one of my favourite ways of conveying a massive sense of scale is to have the party do a covert assault on an installation while titans and imperial guard regiments battle in the distance. An ultramarine roleplaying the level 1 Primarchs curse would be absolutely right to want to head off towards the titan battle and die in a thoroughly pointless way. thus bringing an annoyingly early end to the mission I had planned [edit] and incidentally arguing in reply #24 "that is not how the curse works" and then in reply #25 saying that the reason the curse is not that bad is because you wouldn't enforce part of it as stated in reply #17 is a little bit hypocritical. its obvious what the curse is meant to do, if you wanna ignore parts of it go ahead, but don't say you are interpreting it literally if you are ignoring key phrases in it [/edit] I havent said people shouldn't write two missions, or indeed that people shouldn't do anything. You are not reading my posts correctly. But you will not convince me that DW GM's writing adventures for their players are going to double their workload so as to accomadate Ultramarine players - who may not even be squad leader (and if they aren't their curse doesn't have much effect). That is a decision for the players and while you can argue they might be rules lawyering to get around the curse by picking a different leader, the rules evens ay tthat the role should be rotated among the players. It's also a bit out of character to pick a squad leader who, by virtue of his current state of genetic fallibility, might well not only lead them to certain death, hwoever glorious, but screw up the mission. But i have no advocated people play the system. Where the fighting is thickest might not even always apply since where the fighting is thickest is more often than not going to mean where the kill team chooses to go. If they decide to go aroudn to the back of the bunker to infiltrate covertly then that's where they fighting will be thickest, just as if they went around the front where potentially the greater defence is positioned. Now you might say that latter choice is what the rule means, but it's not the same thing at all. Where the fighting is thickest =/= where the greater concentration of enemies is stationed. And as I said, if you have a rule that shuts down half the players from contributing because the only choice of action is 'where the fighting is thickest' then you've got a problem. Players pick character roles because that's how they want to itneract with the game; if the techmarine wants to go around the back because that's his specialty, for example, but can't because the squad leader is cursed to constantly charge in where the fighting is thickest then not only do you risk alienating the player from the game experience because his contribution is then meaningless, but you risk killing the other characters. That's potentially crossing the line. I know that if that was my character that id invested time and imagination in I wouldn't want him to be thrown away by the whim of a rule, no matter how in keeping with 40k it is. A better way of doing this would be, again as I said, to have the curse compel the ultramarine to treat all mission objectives as equal: that way he coimpels his team to go after everything no matter the risk and not just expedite the mission on the basis of the primary objective. That seems much more balanced. It's still risky, but given the GM will have designed the mission so that all the objectives can be completed without them dying horribly because the team are forced into always picking one course of action no matter how foolhardy. They also get a reward for doing so in that they complete all objectives adn get all the XP/renown entitled to them. XP that can then be spent by the squad leader to buy off Insanity and render his curse inactive (which i presume is what happens otherwise it's just stupid).

ak-73 said: signoftheserpent said: Siranui said: That's not what I wrote. I very clearly specified what I'd do if a player started trying to rules lawyer out of roleplaying a flaw. Flaws are a disadvantage. If they don't come up, then there not a disadvantage. As a GM, I expect a player leading a team with this Curse to want glorious and difficult missions, and to complete them in a glorious manner. That means that if there's a secondary objective of 'kill the orc warlord' or similar; I expect them to go for it. If a player starts being a jerk and trying to tell me 'killing the warlord isn't the mission, and my Curse only says that I want a glorious mission, and we don't get to choose those, so my flaw has no effect', THEN I play hardball. I don't understand how you think what i'm saying has anything to do with rules lawyering. The player isn't lawyering anything, the problem with the curse is that it depends on a choice of adventures, but there isn't going to be one. So it can't come up, how can it? You are again using objectives to make your point, but that part of the curse doesn't talk about objectives. 2 points: in The Russian's PbP game we got two kill-teams. So selecting the more dangerous (part of the) mission is a possibility. Secondly, if you are intent on being to literalist: it says 'The Battle-Brother always volunteers his Kill-team for the most dangerous or challenging Missions whenever possible and always ensures his team is where the fighting is the thickest.' As such I find it to be the most severe Primarch's Curse ever. Alex I covered the second part in reply #17 above.If you have a game with two groups of players then that may be possible - but again only if the GM is writing two adventures (call them misions if you like, it's the same thing). That is most certainly not going to be the norm as most groups will have one kill team (one group of players) and one GM. Certainly, and if only for the sake of my own sanity, that is how i'd run things.

herichimo said: Siranui said: signoftheserpent said: So you as a GM with a cursed ultramarine PC will prepare two adventures in depth, one of which will be more dangerous so as to fulfill the PC's curse? Isn't that a bit ridiculous? That's not what I wrote. I very clearly specified what I'd do if a player started trying to rules lawyer out of roleplaying a flaw. Flaws are a disadvantage. If they don't come up, then there not a disadvantage. As a GM, I expect a player leading a team with this Curse to want glorious and difficult missions, and to complete them in a glorious manner. That means that if there's a secondary objective of 'kill the orc warlord' or similar; I expect them to go for it. If a player starts being a jerk and trying to tell me 'killing the warlord isn't the mission, and my Curse only says that I want a glorious mission, and we don't get to choose those, so my flaw has no effect', THEN I play hardball. Agreed! Sign, you've missed the whole point I was trying to make. You are so caught up in your own logic you seem to have refused to see any other options. If this is the case, I am sorry for you. you are missing the whole point behind the game and won't get as much out of it as others will. As a military veteran myself, I am well aware of what a mission and an objective is. These adventures GMs make, with multiple branching story-lines, multiple side missions, and even changing objectives aren't what I'd call simply a single mission. Sure the Deathwatch NPCs might send you on a mission to start the adventue, well thats just the first of many possible missions your kill-team may have to complete in the adventure. Stop trying to twist RAW into whatever you're trying to twist it into, thats not roleplaying. Roleplaying is about RAI, the curses are there to put a bit of contention between the different chapters, oportunities for roleplaying. No the Ultramarine doesn't have to overrule the group, 4 to the ultra's 1 = ultra doesn't get his way (even if he's the team leader, thats not how team leaders work in this game), now its up to the ultramarine player to either abandon his battle-brothers to take on the super-difficult mission on his own (selfish, narcisistic, completely against Astartes ideals) or to roleplay the Ultramarines angst and feelings of inadaquacy for abandoning what he felt was his duty. Thats Roleplaying. Roleplaying isn't saying, "GM you need to make 2 adventures, and my character will pick which one the whole kill-team will go on because of this curse." Thats just rediculous. herichimo said: Sign, you've missed the whole point I was trying to make. You are so caught up in your own logic you seem to have refused to see any other options. If this is the case, I am sorry for you. you are missing the whole point behind the game and won't get as much out of it as others will. As a military veteran myself, I am well aware of what a mission and an objective is. These adventures GMs make, with multiple branching story-lines, multiple side missions, and even changing objectives aren't what I'd call simply a single mission. Sure the Deathwatch NPCs might send you on a mission to start the adventue, well thats just the first of many possible missions your kill-team may have to complete in the adventure. Stop trying to twist RAW into whatever you're trying to twist it into, thats not roleplaying. Roleplaying is about RAI, the curses are there to put a bit of contention between the different chapters, oportunities for roleplaying. No the Ultramarine doesn't have to overrule the group, 4 to the ultra's 1 = ultra doesn't get his way (even if he's the team leader, thats not how team leaders work in this game), now its up to the ultramarine player to either abandon his battle-brothers to take on the super-difficult mission on his own (selfish, narcisistic, completely against Astartes ideals) or to roleplay the Ultramarines angst and feelings of inadaquacy for abandoning what he felt was his duty. Thats Roleplaying. Roleplaying isn't saying, "GM you need to make 2 adventures, and my character will pick which one the whole kill-team will go on because of this curse." Thats just rediculous. I think you are conflating mission and objective, and that is not how the curse works. I can understand you might want to change the curse so it suits your game. That's fine. But it's also not what I'm discussing. There is an argument for changing the curse to work by way of compelling the ultramarine to pursue ALL the objectives as if they were primary objectives. However that is not how the curse works. Again: the curse says that the squad leader will choose the most dangerous missions. that is not choose the most dangerous objectives. Even if it did it would still not work. The squad leader doesn't choose those objectives, he pursues them to the best of his ability as all marines do. The primarty objective is likley the most dangerous objective anyway (even if it's more dangerous to try and pursue ALL objectives than only the primary and perhaps the secondary) - and how can he choose to pursue objectives? The primary objective, likely even the secondary objective (assuming there are multiple objectives), is the mission - choosing not to pursue them, which is the implication here, is the same as choosing not to play the game. So i ask: what practical effect does the curse have as written. And following it as written isn't rules lawyering. Rules lawyering is manipulating the rules to suit yoruself, such as pursuing the best buidl to make a marine that can't miss when he shoots or something (i have no idea how possible that is). Following the curse is to follow a rule that inhibits the marine so it's the precise opposite of rules lawyering. Again if you want to change the way the curse works then that's entirely your choice.

Siranui said: signoftheserpent said: The rule says... Roleplay, not rollplay. Alternatively, I'm pretty darned sure that there's a bit in the rules somewhere that outlines Rule 0: It doesn't matter what the rules say, it's what the GM says. I don't understand how you think this is relevant. I'm not suggesting that players can choose to get around the curse, i'm saying that the curse has no real effect.

Siranui said: That's not what I wrote. I very clearly specified what I'd do if a player started trying to rules lawyer out of roleplaying a flaw. Flaws are a disadvantage. If they don't come up, then there not a disadvantage. As a GM, I expect a player leading a team with this Curse to want glorious and difficult missions, and to complete them in a glorious manner. That means that if there's a secondary objective of 'kill the orc warlord' or similar; I expect them to go for it. If a player starts being a jerk and trying to tell me 'killing the warlord isn't the mission, and my Curse only says that I want a glorious mission, and we don't get to choose those, so my flaw has no effect', THEN I play hardball. I don't understand how you think what i'm saying has anything to do with rules lawyering. The player isn't lawyering anything, the problem with the curse is that it depends on a choice of adventures, but there isn't going to be one. So it can't come up, how can it?You are again using objectives to make your point, but that part of the curse doesn't talk about objectives.

herichimo said: I see the Ultra primarch curse as following: In an adventure you are given a mission to clear a nest of enemy out of a bunker up ahead. You may a. march straight ahead taking fire while you cross the kill-zone. b. sneak around through the nearby forest and take them from the side, or c. Use guile to try to get one or your squad close enough to open up a whole in the fire zones of the bunker. An Ultra always looking for the most difficult missions would take a. in a heartbeat. The stories you are participating in are actually adventures. This is what "roleplaying" stories are called, not missions. You can actually have several "missions" in a single "adventure", or you may only have one. You may be briefed your going on one "mission" then as the story evolves it gets more complicated, your PCs start choosing what they should do, you gain more missions etc. Its all dependent on the complexity of the adventure. I don't doubt you believe increadibly strong in your own logic, but I'm very certain the Deathwatch designers didn't make this curse so the marine would have to choose one or another adventure the GM has prepared, GMing isn't a full time job you know this game is ment to be fun, for everyone. Some of you may start crying, "oh boo hoo hoo, the DW book calls them missions..." etc etc. ad infinatum. But this is semantics. The "mission" a GM prepares is an adventure. The "missions" described in the Ultra curse are what a military man would consider a mission. I.e. you are given orders to complete a. b. and c. While completing this "mission" you learn more about the "mission-adventure" by discovering info about x. and y. and either decide whether its your duty or not to deal with them as well. Therefore you can have multiple "missions" in a single "mission-adventure". The rule says that the ultramarine will select the most dangerous mission. How can he select when the only choice is what the GM has prepared (whether you call it a mission or an adventure is immaterial; DW uses the word mission to mean the same thing given it's miltary style) or not to play. I personally won't write multiple missions, because it's a waste of my time - i'd create one that was deliberately weak knowing the pC's had to choose the main one, so why bother with the pretence at all? I think what peopel are doing is confusing objectives with missions. They are distinct and separate. Now if the curse said: the ultramarine will be compelled to complete all objectives, regardless of risk factor or expediencey, not just the primary, i'd say that makes sense. But that is an entirely separate idea to what was written. I think people are misunderstanding what I'm saying. This isn't about rulesmongering it's about the practicality of that rule. If the writers intended something else entirely then they should have been more clear (i see no errata for it either). What people here have done is deliberately or unintentionally misunderstood what the rule says. I have no problem with people revising the rule to suit their needs, if they think they can do it better. What you are talking about is how the marine approaches the objective, which is the second part of that curse. That itself raises problems, if you have a squad leader forced to pick the most dangerous course of action (which isn't the same thing as mission) everytime: It completely shuts down player interaction and discuission of kill team strategy which is a big no no in my book. For example, the killteam have assessed two ways to get to the enemy bunker: if they sneak round the back the techmarine can hack their way in, or they can yell 'for the emepror' and rush headlong to the more defensible front entrance. Well, there's no discussion is there, the ultramarine is going to overrule the choice, the techmarine player is going to be pissed off because he can't contribute and the game gets stupid because everyone's character is now, probably quite needlessly, put into a great deal of danger in a way the players cannot control. That's bad gaming. Either that or the curse is meaningless. Therefore sensible players, who will get accused of 'gaming the system' will vote not to allow the ultramrine to lead the squad! This wouldn't be so much of a problem if the rules allowed marines to heal their mental disorders, but once you have a curse - you're cursed. Same as insanities and corruption. I understand that this is 40k, but I think this should be reconsidered because it is basically saying 'your character is now screwed and it's only a matter of time before you have to give up' which is a poor signal to players that have invested in that character. you might argue that it's their reward for bad decisions as soldiers, but that' snot always going to be the case. You fight chaos, you score corruption - that's the setting. However there does need to be a compromise, especially with rules that mean an ultramarine squad leader is dooming his squad - if that is how the curse is going to work. What's the point of contributing tactically if the game is going to be reduced to 'over the top boys!' everytime?

Brand said: signoftheserpent said: So you as a GM with a cursed ultramarine PC will prepare two adventures in depth, one of which will be more dangerous so as to fulfill the PC's curse? Isn't that a bit ridiculous? I don't know that two "in-depth" scenarios is what it calls for. The basic scenario is the same. EotE just calls for an added Tertiary Objective, so it shouldn't change the entire purpose of the mission. Depending on how the GM wants to run it, it could be anything from making the character swing by to save an ancient statue from rampaging Orks to defeating a Tyranid Warrior in hand-to-hand combat while wearing a peacock-type creature as headgear. In either case, it should be something to add to the original campaign, especially roleplaying, and not require an entirely new mission. We're referring to the Ultramarine Primarch Curse here. Not Eear of the Emperor.The curse states that the ultramarine, cursed, always goes for the most difficult mission available. GIven that mission = adventure = written by the GM for there to be a choice the GM has to plan multiple adventures otherwise the curse means nothing.

So you as a GM with a cursed ultramarine PC will prepare two adventures in depth, one of which will be more dangerous so as to fulfill the PC's curse? Isn't that a bit ridiculous?

Siranui said: So the guy insists on taking the most dangerous and glorious missions, but when on them can then elect to wimp out, do the easy bits and ignore the risky and glorious parts? I think not. That may be the exact wording, but that's not the intention, and it would be poor roleplay. The intention is clearly that the marine becomes a glory hound. If I had a player who tried dicking around with rules like that I'd give him a choice of missions alright: Either do 'X', or 'Y'. Where 'X' is a reasonable mission and 'Y' is to destroy 15 enemy Titans and an entire invasion force armed only with basic equipment. If players want to jerk me about, I can jerk about, too. It's supposed to be an actual tangible disadvantage. I'm afraid you're misunderstand the rule.The squad leader is ONLY decided after the mission is taken. This means if you have a character with the curse he does't have to be squad leader. There is no where in the rules that says he has to be leader. Furthermore at the point of deciding qho is squad leader, his curse will have no effect since the mission's already been taken. The curse is ineffectual since there's no choice of mission: you play the adventure the GM writes or you go home. The curse doesn't say that the ultramarine must insist on being squad leader or that he is automatically squad leader. It simply says he has to choose which mission to take. I'm asking: 'what choice of mission'? This has nothing to do with playing the system. The curse's effect is predicated on the existence of a multiple choice. I personally have never been in a game where the GM gave us a choice of adventures, nor have i, as GM, presented the players with such. I write one adventure, that's it. You are confusing mission with objective. The rules do not say objective, they say mission. It doesn't say that the ultramarine insists on completing ALL objectives, however dangerous (which might make more sense). What you are suggesting is that you would write 3 adventures for the player to choose from. That's impractical at best: it's not WoW where the ultramarine can pull up his quest log and be forced to pick the red text quest over the green or yellow.

Siranui said: I completely disagree as regards the Ultramarines, and genuinely believe their level 1 curse to be potentially the deadliest out there. Ultramarines are very often the team lead, and so in the position to make the calls as to what the party are doing on-mission. Given the task of -say- infiltrating and orc encampment and killing a few choice targets, with lower priority objectives of killing the entire encampment and the two Gargants that are sat there, what are sensible players going to do? Obviously, avoid the suicidal aspects and do the job with minimum fuss. What's the Ultramarine going to do? He's going to insist on reaping every last drop of glory out of the mission. The Marine might not get to choose the mission, but they choose how it is completed, and putting a glory-boy in charge of a mission is going to make it FAR riskier. The first level isn't about objectives, it's about the mission. At least that's my reading. It suggests the quad leader can volunteer the team for more dangerous missions, but there isn't going to be a choice of missions unless the GM has prepared several missions to choose from. Certainly that's never been how i've written something. Where will there be a choice of missions? Objectives are part of that mission. The curse doesn't say avoid the easy objectives do the difficult ones. Also the primary objectives are the mission, so there's not much choice to be had there either.

At the extreme level it's possible that this may be the purview of Black Crusade, especially given the title. What I'm saying is the path of Corruption can be a source of plot and adventure: perhaps the Marine is toyed with, on his seemingly inexorable (no matter ow slow - Corruption would seem irreversible) journey into ruin, and tempted by Chaos. Thus why not have, for example, a Battle Trauma where the Marine hears the whispers of the ruinous powers and he has to deal with that. On a mission to find and destroy a chaos artifact this could have interesting consequnces during play. If he resists, perhaps he gains xp or something.