Just finished reading the section on Insanity and Corruption. I felt a bit disappointed tbh; it feels a bit lazy and is unclear. I understand that Marines are different and thus more desensitised to these things and so they have to be handled differently, but it's a little confusing to follow where they explain that and then provide the systems for use with non-astartes characters (who are likelty only NPC's anyway). However some of the rules I don't understand: how on earth does the battle trauma 'ear of the emperor' work? It seems to suggest that it happens at the start of th emission, not triggered as a truama. There is no errata entry for it. There is also no explanation of how battle trauma's end and the rules seem to suggest that healing insanity points (a very vague process, almost as much as the guidance for awarding them, which is unfortuantely none) doesn't actually heal the associated problems. So a Marine that gets enough insanity to trigger a battle trauma will always suffer that trauama until he dies, the same with his primarch's curse - once he reahes the thresholds where that, at increasingly severe levels, manifests healing insanity points will have no effect on that. Is that intentional? Also the Ultramarines seem to get off easy; their first primarch curse level is completely ineffectual since the players (and thus the ultramarine squad leader) will have zero input in what mission they are going to play since the GM wrote it and it's either that or nothing! How many GM's write up a variety of adventures (ie missions) and give the players the choice? I also think they missed a trick with Corruption. It feels like they phoned this section in, I'm afraid. Perhaps this crosses over too much with what Black Crusde offers, but I think including a 'minigame' where marines can become corrupt, eventually being excluded from the Emperor's light, but without necessarily turning into horned goats or tentacle wielding monstrosities could be an interesting part of the game. By making it either you are either not corrupt (less than 100 points) or you are corrupt and thus unplayable misses a trick, but perhaps this is the subject of a later sourcebook/Black Crusade. After all there are 40k novels where the protagonists are chaos space marines. Such characters wouldn't even have to be avowed servants or slaves of chaos or members of the traitor legions, they could be akin to ronin. Certainly in the 40k unvierse they would be branded the same as any chaos space marine, but in the game there could be a chance for redemption perhaps while the character seeks to atone or at least stave off the enslavement of the ruinous powers?

Blood Pact said: Well, that's because Rogue Trader uses a system much more similar to Deathwatch than Dark Heresy does. Personally, while it's a pain when it comes to compatibilty, I like how DH's system works within itself. I guess I just have a soft spot for all the minor powers. But the index says there's an entry on using rogue trader psychic powers in DW, even though the entry doesn't exist.

TCBC Freak said: Rites of Battle has a little "side bar" thing dealing with this very topic. I say you ought to pick up a copy, it is full of awesome stuff. There's no mention of Rogue Trader in that sidebar, only Dark Heresy (even though the index mentions RT as well).

Dark Crusade? Do you mean Black Crusade?

Is Edge of the Abyss any good? I don't care about the adventure within, but the Chaos stuff interests me. What DH books are good for RT (or even DW, but im posting here). Thanks.

Little things like this are surely the easiest things to clarify but this isn't even mentioned in the errata. Also presumably the fatigue rules aren't just for the players, they apply to NPC's and enemies. Thus it's easier on a Rogue Trader to get punched by a Space Marine using DW rules than it is to get punched by an Ork in Rogue Trader in this respect.

borithan said: Truthfully I wouldn't recommend using a Daemon Prince (or anything that complicated) without fore-thought and planning though, to allow you the time to clarify what all its little bits do. Indeed, but there aren't a lot of other options. I suspect all the equivalent level adversaries are equally complex or detailed.

borithan said: You're right, the fatigue rules are a bit unclear. They always have been (looking at Dark Heresy there is little clarification at what happens to fatigue when you fall unconscious), but my guess is that you "remove" all fatigue when falling unconscious and that "regain" means you then receive another level of fatigue when you wake up... basically meaning you still have the -10 penalty for fatigue but are as far away as possible to falling unconscious again otherwise (and yes, like the speed you regain fatigue this seems to be a special one for space marines). Truthfully I wouldn't worry too much about that though. I have only seen fatigue build up close to knocking a marine out once, and have yet to see it quite tip over the edge, and for the length of time someone remains out cold most fights are over before anyone comes round again, and the speed of recovery means you can easily just say "You're all better now" when it would next matter. I don't care to second guess rules, simply because it's not always clear (at least until you play) how rules work and assuming incorrectly may have undesirable consequences. That's the art of writing rules. The rule doesn't say that Fatigue clears if the target is rendered unconscious, though it might make sense for that to happen. Furthermore, as I said, the Fatigue rule in RT says that (according to the example) the character only removes enough levels, upon regaining consciousness, to put his Fatigue equal to his TB. That isn't the case in DW and I don't know if that's intentional (though if it is that strikes me as ill advised). The rule (in DW) says that the target regains one level of Fatigue, which is where it's unclear and i could find no errata entry for this. So either Fatigue does what the example (in DW) says, or what it says in RT, or the target regains consciousness and loses only one level of Fatigue, which could potentially put him straight back under again. So it's really not clear at all.

Well it's an issue of clarity. I don't know what every single talent, trait, piece of gear, power, etc etc means. I'm reading the rules and I haven't played the game so that information isn't committed to memory. Assuming that someone reading the rulebook is going to have some form of eidetic memory is a tall order. Most people will read the book, get the gist of the rules, play the game, make a few mistakes, learn and get better. There's a lot to take in and the majority of rules are circumstantial. So when I come across an incongruity like this it takes me out of running the game while i say 'hang on, his TB isn't permanently 12'. That's also important when you consider using TB for other things, such as the effects of damage or whatnot, because Daemonic is again circumstantial. Now I'm sure once you know that it's not a big deal, same with most things. It's when you don't know that it's a problem. Also the Fatigue rule needs clarification because the wording is unclear. He regains a level of fatigue - from what? There's no indication that he heals fatigue by virtue of falling unconscious. However the example states that when the guy comes round he heals all but one level of Fatigue. Now in the RT rulebook the guy in the example for the same rule comes around and his Fatigue levels are set to match his TB. Perhaps the rule is meant to be slightly different for Space Marines, that's fair enough, but the entry is still unclear.

Narkasis Broon said: no, that isnt what you said, your post which I quoted said he has TB 16 when attacked by non psychic, non holy, non daemonic weapons. this is only true if he also has a mark of Nurgle. he has TB 8 if attacked by a psychic, holy or daemonic weapon and TB 12 otherwise. his stat block says 12 because psychic, holy and daemonic weapons are relatively rare. so most attacks will be against a TB of 12 I think you've misread what I said.Daemonic is conditional, that's what I said. He doesn't have a TB 12 all the time, so the entry is incorrect because it doesn't take into account the conditionality of the Daemonic trait. He only gets his TB of 12 if the conditions of Daemonic are met. So the entry needs amendment; at best it is very unclear.

Narkasis Broon said: signoftheserpent said: Daemonic only stacks if the subject has Unnatural Tougheness and is being attacked by certain weapons. It doesn't explain the errant entry. If he has Daemonic x2 then being attacked in that way would make his TB 16 but only under those conditions (assuming his Unnatural Toughness is x2 not x3). It doesn't explain how you get a persistent TB of 12 with UT of x2 otherwise. That is my understanding of it. So there seems to be something still incorrect. Daemonic says "multiply their toughness bonus against all damage by the number indicated in parentheses after the trait IN THE SAME MANNER AS AN UNNATURAL CHARACTERISTIC" the unnatural characteristic entry says "Each time you apply this trait to the same characteristic the bonus multiplier increases by 1..... Any additional modifiers... simply improves the existing multiplier by 1" the specific example is using a powerfist which doubles your strength does not double your unnatural strength, but rather gives you unnat strength x3 This gives a daemon prince TB12 against anything that isnt a force weapon, holy attack, psychic power or another daemon. the 12 is given in the stat block because holy and daemonic attacks are very rare, and probably only 1 member out of the party will have access to psychic or force weapon attacks. so it is far more likely to have TB 12 against most attacks Isn't that what I said? The Daemon Prince has Daemonic listed at level 1, that means, ignoring his UT trait for now, he doubles his normal TB. Adding that to his UT he multiplies his TB by 3 = 12. On it's own the Daemonic trait will give him a TB of 8 (as per the errata) because it doubles his TB of 4.

Daemonic only stacks if the subject has Unnatural Tougheness and is being attacked by certain weapons. It doesn't explain the errant entry. If he has Daemonic x2 then being attacked in that way would make his TB 16 but only under those conditions (assuming his Unnatural Toughness is x2 not x3). It doesn't explain how you get a persistent TB of 12 with UT of x2 otherwise. That is my understanding of it. So there seems to be something still incorrect.

He does have Daemonic, but my reading of the trait is unclear. I can't see where it says that it also grants +1 (per level of the trait) TB. It is a factor applied to their TB (itself increased by Unnatural Toughness). At least that is my reading.

The errata skipped a mistake on the Daemon Prince's stats. He lists Unnatural Toughness x2 and a Toughness of 45. It lists his TB (presumably the number in brackets) as 12. I assume his Unnatural Toughness should be x3, same as his Strength?

ak-73 said: So how difficult is it for you to determine the challenge rating of a Tau Crisis Suit for example. How difficult would it be to list how much XP it cost to build the Crisis Suit? How difficult is it to cost out the unique talents/traits/rules that many adversaries come with? Could they not have been included in the talents list rather than solely for that monster? That way the GM has extra tools, properly costed, to build new monsters? That idea isn't without precedent as the talents list already includes many that are used only for adversaries as it is. Surely the best way is to guage the XP cost of the kill team and use that to either build new monsters/xenos or build your own version of stuf like tyranids/tau, or to 'pay' for stuff in the book already. I don't understand why that's not possible; these adversaries use the same talents and stats as marines so therefore they must fall on the same xp costs, even regardless how may stats/talents/traits they have. As I said, unique talents could have been costed to factor in. Weapons too, if necessary. That's how other games do it. If i play Mutants and Masterminds, i build villains using the same points as the players, or less if they are to be weaker henchmen types (and many games have their own henchmen rules, or horde rules anyway). Why not here? What makes 40k different in that regard. The GM can then choose if he wants to use a monster with higher stats and can write the adventure accordingly - he at least has the info to make that decision. Now it might be possible for me to go through the stats of each monster and retrofit an XP cost, as someone is bound to suggest. But that's extra work that really I shouldn't have to do. Why? Because that's why we pay for rulebooks. DIY is entirely fine, if that's your thing (and with an xp system, as i said, you still can), but it should only be an option, not the default.

ak-73 said: signoftheserpent said: You are somewhat missing the point. I'm not arguing whether variables can or can't affect combat. It's pretty obvious that combat circumstances can alter the balance. But those are things I can judge for myself after I know how tough the opposition is on paper. If I know that 1 Lictor is as hard as 1 SM then I can put him in a situation that balances him against an entire kill-team, if i want, or not. I can make that decision properly because i have the information to do so. Anything else is just guesswork, and telling me that adversaries can be tougher or weaker depending on circumstances beyond their stats is really a way of evading the question. So how difficult is it for you to determine the challenge rating of a Tau Crisis Suit for example. How long does it take you to assess it on your own, assuming you have glanced over all the stats at once? Because you can't pop master or elite tier enemies into a game without reading over them at least once. Unless you and your friends are only fooling around, which is okay too. You need to closely glance over it prior to the fact. No way of getting around that, challenge rating or not. And you need to learn all the most important talents and traits before-hand. If that's too much work, the game is either too complex for your taste or you need to resort to a more fooling around play-style. Alex And that is also incredibly patronising. I'm getting increasingly angry at these comments. If you think this is how to respond to a fellow player then you need to learn some social skills. I haven't shown the slightest disrespect to anyone and I am not going to sit here and let you talk to me like that. Learn some respect.

Brand said: signoftheserpent said: Blood Pact said: Charmander said: because he (she?), intentionally or not, appears to disregard a lot of what people say and if things don't fit exactly as he wants them to the person or game is illogical, irrational, silly, or something similar. Of course, that's hardly an uncommon behavior around here. It's also unfair. It's not really reasonable to criticise someone by assuming they aren't prepapred to whip up their own rules and stats for various things when they buy into a published game. While peopel are entirely free to do just that, the whole point of buying a published game is so you don't have to. That is after all what you are paying for. It's unfair to criticise someone on that basis or for wanting clarification on how things work. You would think that a game system would be perfectly able to classify monsters as everything adheres to a single rules system and uses numbers to rate and cost abilities and such. SOTS, what everyone has been saying is that such a classification system doesn't work, even in games like D&D that try to use it. At best, all you can get is a general idea of how deadly a creature can be. For example, look at the simple Genestealer. Say you've got a group of 3 Deathwatch Space Marines, all Devastators. If the fight takes place in an open field with little cover and 3 Genestealers charge the team from 200 meters away, you'll have a very short fight as the Devastators blast 'em to little pieces. Now imagine the same fight taking place in a space hulk, with tight corridors, low lighting, and flickering glow lamps causing havok by producing moving shadows. The Genestealers drop out of vents or shadows and engage that same kill-team. In this case, you've likely got 3 dead Space Marines. So are 3 Genestealers a match for 3 Space Marines? The answer is that they can be. But the situational factors - environment, what specialties make up the party, etc - play such a huge role that you can't make such general classifications. Change that second fight from 3 Devastators to 2 Assault Marines and a Librarian and you'll be looking at an entirely different outcome. You are somewhat missing the point. I'm not arguing whether variables can or can't affect combat. It's pretty obvious that combat circumstances can alter the balance. But those are things I can judge for myself after I know how tough the opposition is on paper. If I know that 1 Lictor is as hard as 1 SM then I can put him in a situation that balances him against an entire kill-team, if i want, or not. I can make that decision properly because i have the information to do so. Anything else is just guesswork, and telling me that adversaries can be tougher or weaker depending on circumstances beyond their stats is really a way of evading the question.

ak-73 said: Classification offers false security. It's a GMs job to callibrate encounters to the kill-team. There is no way getting around it. And putting that work in will make you more familiar with the rules as a GM also. I mean how hard is it really for you? A Nid warrior has 48 wounds. If you look at the stats, you'll see that he's more than a match for a Rank1 marine in melee. You'll also see that he sucks in ranged combat. (I am talking pre errata here.) What more do you need to know? Alex That's incredibly patronising. This is a complex game, there's a lot of stuff and thus a lot of variables. How is the GM to calibrate encounters if he doesn't know how - resort to condescending comments from defensive people online? How's that helpful? Why should any rpg be designed to be a trial by fire as opposed to giving the players/gm every helping hand available? It's not a test, it's a game, something we do for fun.How hard is it? I have no idea. That's the point. If I look at stats I have no immediate way of knowing, which you admit in your first sentence.

Blood Pact said: Charmander said: because he (she?), intentionally or not, appears to disregard a lot of what people say and if things don't fit exactly as he wants them to the person or game is illogical, irrational, silly, or something similar. Of course, that's hardly an uncommon behavior around here. It's also unfair. It's not really reasonable to criticise someone by assuming they aren't prepapred to whip up their own rules and stats for various things when they buy into a published game. While peopel are entirely free to do just that, the whole point of buying a published game is so you don't have to. That is after all what you are paying for. It's unfair to criticise someone on that basis or for wanting clarification on how things work. You would think that a game system would be perfectly able to classify monsters as everything adheres to a single rules system and uses numbers to rate and cost abilities and such.

ak-73 said: Traditionally pen&paper RPGs do without such categorizations. It's part of the GM's job to develop the eye measure to properly balance encounters. Based on the tabletop rules, I'd say a Lictor would an elite-tier xeno according to the DW tiers, if that helps you out. Probably bordering on master-tier. 2 marines should struggle, 4 marines should be able to manage. The CA should be somewhat weaker than that because it has been geared towards low power PCs. Be warned though that DW works differently than D&D. Here the fights are shorter and more brutish, it's do or die. If the Lictor can spring an attack, it might cause the first burnt fate point immediately. And it matters not if the marine is Rank 1 or Rank 8. So your approach to DW is too much influenced by D&D. Things work slightly different here. Alex I'm not sure what relevance mentioning D&D has. I have never run it, nor do I have any desire to do so. Comparisons aren't relevant. What other games do or don't do doesn't inform this discussion at all.I really don't understand the way FFG design these games at all. I also don't understand the attitude that takes umbrage at someone wanting to buy the game/books and then tell them to do it all yourself. If FFG responded to that attitude then there'd be no game in the first place. So surely the best way forward is to provide people with the tools and rules to do it yourself and support that. FFG, otoh, seem to want to do the opposite; each book has lots of cool ideas but dangles tidbits of useful stuff atrhoughout all the books and all the gamelines with no discernible logic. Now maybe there is reason in their madness, but I'm afraid it's lost on me. I looked at Edge of the Abyss, which has nothing to do with DW, and found it has an interesting section on Chaos with sorcery. Was this really the best way to present that information? It's probably got considerable value beyond RT (excluding the ship rules). I get that lots of people want to help in their own way, and that's great and I appreciate it. However I think they are also wonderfully missing the point. That's not meant as an insult either, that's just how I see it. That Chaos info, for example, could have been presented in a Chaos Sourcebook - and you won'tconvince me a book like that wouldn't sell. As for learning on the job, well that's all well and good, but again surely it is the author's job to give the prospective players/GM all the help and tools they can to make their game work, especially one as crunchy as this. Already the GM has to deal with an amount of errata (which wouldn't be so bad but it seems to include a complete rewrite of all the gear stats which is not terribly handy). So rifling through several different books to cross reference rules as well as learn the experience to judge balance. Wouldn't you think that in a game based on systems of numbers that a balancing system would be very easy to achieve. If you can create a Space Marine using 12k XP, then you could surely say a Lictor costs 14k xp or whatever. He is after all built from the same stats and abilities (with a few exceptions that I'm sure could be costed). And yes Mark of the Xenos might have all sorts of good stuff - but it might not. It looks potentially very good, but it also looks like it has very specific antagonists, something FFG do a lot. If you again look at Edge of the Abyss it doesn't so much provide 'generic' eldar or orks or whatever, it gives stats for a specific eldar pirate guy haunting the Expanse (and his stats take up half a page!). Is that efficient? Is a stat block that large not unwieldy? I really would love to hear from FFG why they take these decisions.

Stormast said: DW ≠ DH That is part of the problem. CA was written for DH level (although within that there's a broad specturm of ability reaching Ascension level characters). Just presenting a block of numbers and talents isn't enough.

I'm talking about my own experience. I can't talk abut any other kind. Players get fed up if the game isn't balanced. I don't see how comparing what other games do. What was the Lictor put into CA for then? What sort of characters were intended to fight it? I can't imagine it would be much fun if a group of Acolytes stumble across one and then get eaten alive.

Because that kind of experience leads to frustration and puts players off.

Stormast said: It is the level of threat you want. Basically. With the description on the Lexicanum (wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Lictor) you can guess approximately : the Lictors are Tyranid Warriors under steroids with much much Agility, +20 on Silent Move and Concealment, and eventually some funny natural weapons (if you want, of course). If you don't want to spend money (because, of course, Tabletop statistics are not freely available ), I can only tell you what I feel the Lictors are, because there have always been discrepancies between people as to which unit they think are the strongest. I would personnaly take a Tyrannid Warrior, bump his Agi, give him all it takes to be super stealthy, and give him one or two special rules / Talents / invented capacities to make him able to deal a lot of damage to a Space Marine on his sneak attack. The idea being, Lictors are super deadly when you aren't expecting them, but they are fragile. But these are only my 2 cents, and to tell the truth, you seem to me as particularily unfair, because it is possible to balance threats in Deathwatch, just like in many other RPGs : with a bit of experience. Sorry, you are not answering the question.The Lictor as listed has specific stats. So what is the equivalent in Space Marine terms? Rank 1 new character? Rank 4? How much xp? What i want doesn't come into it. And if there is a way to balance threats, why not just tell me? Is this a secret that only come are allowed to know?

So no one can tell me what level of 'power', if you like, a Lictor is then? HOw many Space Marines they can handle? Nothing like that? Isn't that a bit ridiculous? I can't think of a single game ive run where it isn't possible, explicitly or otherwise, to balance threats in some fashion.