More Renown for Less Requisition Spent/Less Specific Gear

[CrispyRat 0]

I have been kicking around the idea that Kill Teams that spend less requisition before a mission could (presuming they meet a success threshold) gain more renown for completion of a mission.

For instance, there are renown gains for dealing with Tyranids in hand-to-hand combat. There are no such renown gains for standing behind a heavy bolter and destroying from distance, and there could be a renown HIT if the team decided to complete a mission by orbital bombarding a single hormagaunt.  It could follow that a Kill Team who only selects knives to defeat the Hive Fleet Dagon would, once the dust settled, be *very* highly renowned.

Something like:

• Spend half of the requisition afforded and, upon completion of the missions primary/secondary objectives gain +1 renown.
• A Kill Team who restricts the requisition of equipment to a single heavy weapon, upon completion of mission objectives will gain +1 renown.
• Complete a mission with no heavy bolter - +1 renown (kidding - but you get the point)

The idea being two-fold:

a) Give the team more opportunity to gain renown through the completion of missions with the minimum required gear. Sort of playing "name that tune" but with weapons. 

b) Help the GM out a bit by allowing the team to self-restrict weapons and equipment before missions. This is helpful for those GMs who feel their games have gotten out of hand. 

While I know the Watch Commander CAN change the gear a group takes, this provides them an opportunity to self-police choices for gain.

I haven't nailed down, exactly, what would work and/or what would be fair, and I am interested to see if this idea makes any sense from the community. Suggestions/Critiques are more than welcome.

Thanks in advance.

[Siranui 2]

 It's not a bad idea. However, it fails to police personal wargear. ie: The squad could grab a load, and then never bother requisitioning extra kit in order to get the bonus.

[Charmander2 6]

CrispyRat said:

 

I have been kicking around the idea that Kill Teams that spend less requisition before a mission could (presuming they meet a success threshold) gain more renown for completion of a mission.

For instance, there are renown gains for dealing with Tyranids in hand-to-hand combat. There are no such renown gains for standing behind a heavy bolter and destroying from distance, and there could be a renown HIT if the team decided to complete a mission by orbital bombarding a single hormagaunt.  It could follow that a Kill Team who only selects knives to defeat the Hive Fleet Dagon would, once the dust settled, be *very* highly renowned.

Something like:

• Spend half of the requisition afforded and, upon completion of the missions primary/secondary objectives gain +1 renown.
• A Kill Team who restricts the requisition of equipment to a single heavy weapon, upon completion of mission objectives will gain +1 renown.
• Complete a mission with no heavy bolter - +1 renown (kidding - but you get the point)

The idea being two-fold:

a) Give the team more opportunity to gain renown through the completion of missions with the minimum required gear. Sort of playing "name that tune" but with weapons. 

b) Help the GM out a bit by allowing the team to self-restrict weapons and equipment before missions. This is helpful for those GMs who feel their games have gotten out of hand. 

While I know the Watch Commander CAN change the gear a group takes, this provides them an opportunity to self-police choices for gain.

I haven't nailed down, exactly, what would work and/or what would be fair, and I am interested to see if this idea makes any sense from the community. Suggestions/Critiques are more than welcome.

Thanks in advance.

 

 

The core theme of your idea sounds right to me, but something about getting extra renown for choosing less equipment than the boss suggests doesn't seem right.  Glory comes from facing your enemy eye to eye, and dealing with threats greater than you.  Something about saying "I will stride naked into the hive ship and come out victorious" doesn't make me think renown (though reputation for sure if you come out alive)- something about putting yourself at a disadvantage when you know you should have more weapons/equipment.

For A above, I think I like the theme you're going for- finding ways to help the team other ways to gain renown by challenging themselves.  But something about this leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I'm not positive what it is.

To address B, above, it seems that the GM needs to find a new system for req.  If the base req system isn't working, I see a the base problem is the GM is over-estimating the threat posed by enemies and giving out too much req, or the encounters/adventuer flow isn't posing enough of a threat or challenge to the PCs and how they operate.  To solve these I'd look at a different req system (I've heard the one in The Emperor Protects is good, but not seen it yet), or look at the encounters and the group and adjust the encounters to challenge the PCs (either through enemy composition, enemy tactics, foreknowlege of the PCs, etc., etc.) rather than giving PCs bonuses for working within what the GM deems to be an appropriate challenge (and FWIW, I'd think that giving the PCs bonus renown would soon get out of hand also, and the PCs could then req higher level/more powerful stuff which will then make the game MORE out of hand).

Anyhow, that's just my two cents.

[Sandepande 0]

I'm not a professional soldier, but I wouldn't praise anyone stupid enough to make accomplishing missions harder than they need to be. Deathwatch is likely to be more concerned with results and manpower than pissing contests, and while defeating a Daemon Prince with the a spoon you stole from the refectory is certainly impressive and will have your mates requisitioning you drinks for years to come, it is also an unacceptable risk to the Marine's life.

So no, I would not grant any extra Renown for being foolish.

[ak-73 248]

Sandepande said:

I'm not a professional soldier, but I wouldn't praise anyone stupid enough to make accomplishing missions harder than they need to be. Deathwatch is likely to be more concerned with results and manpower than pissing contests, and while defeating a Daemon Prince with the a spoon you stole from the refectory is certainly impressive and will have your mates requisitioning you drinks for years to come, it is also an unacceptable risk to the Marine's life.

So no, I would not grant any extra Renown for being foolish.

 

Otoh, if the Marine manages to do that it will generate Renown. In 40K stupidity or no depends entirely on success.

 

Alex

 

[Charmander2 6]

ak-73 said:

Sandepande said:

 

I'm not a professional soldier, but I wouldn't praise anyone stupid enough to make accomplishing missions harder than they need to be. Deathwatch is likely to be more concerned with results and manpower than pissing contests, and while defeating a Daemon Prince with the a spoon you stole from the refectory is certainly impressive and will have your mates requisitioning you drinks for years to come, it is also an unacceptable risk to the Marine's life.

So no, I would not grant any extra Renown for being foolish.

 

 

 

Otoh, if the Marine manages to do that it will generate Renown. In 40K stupidity or no depends entirely on success.

 

Alex

 

 so terribly true.  They may think you're an idiot ahead of time, but if you come from the smoking ruin in one piece you'll be praised as protected by the Emperor himself.

But that said, Marines don't throw their lives away foolishly, so even if you used this system (I'd personally look for a way to reduce the amount of req issues per mission) I would expect a Watch Captain to take notice of the extra risks his troppers are doing for bragging rights and say something about it.

[ejacobs 16]

I think something like this will be coming once Rites of Battle is released.  Knives vs HF Dagon might sound cool, until you realize the likelihood of success is nil.  But I agree, greater prestige should be earned when using minimal resources, still remaining within SM reasoning.  I believe RoB will cover this.

E

[hellebore2 2]

Well maybe it has to do with the actual requisition renown level needed to get gear?

A space marine doesn't NEED a thunderhammer to get the job done, a melta bomb, bolter and power sword should get the job done.

The really high end equipment grants diminishing returns. The majority low end stuff should be able to complete most missions, the higher end stuff is really just there to give players some advancement bling to make themselves feel badass.

It's a little ironic that the more you succeed at your mission, the easier your boss makes it for you to succeed...

 

Space marine forces carry enough weaponry to defeat most foes without tossing in all the extra bling the DW can requisition, so most missions performed by the brothers should be doable with basic equipment. If they knew ahead of time that they'd be fighting X and that required a minimum of Y equipment, then it would certainly be obvious if they shifted into overkill.

It may have to be something GM controlled though, where the GM has to assess whether the players worked smart rather than blunt. Did they really need to requisition terminator armour and assault cannons to take out the genestealer cult? Or was some bolters, frag grenades and chainswords adequate?

If the GM is confident enough to determine whether the players went for smart kill rather than overkill, then they could grant bonus renown for that. You aren't going to get much renown relying on excessive weaponry.

Hellebore

[Charmander2 6]

Hellebore said:

It's a little ironic that the more you succeed at your mission, the easier your boss makes it for you to succeed...

True, though bosses are notoriously stupid, and there are far too many real world examples of this type of behavior

[Sandepande 0]

ak-73 said:

Otoh, if the Marine manages to do that it will generate Renown. In 40K stupidity or no depends entirely on success.

Alex

I would go for it only when the characters skip on Requisition for someone else's benefit and/or because the resources are low, and still come out on top. That sort of thing merits genuine appreciation.

Personally, I think that Marines are too professional to suffer fame-grabbing fools for long - with the exception of certain dramatic situations, and there surely are Chapters which value bravery and bravado above more practical approaches...

[player646179 0]

This idea sounds in league with the atmosphere and theme of DW and Space Marines in general. 

But, if one was to take this model along in the game, it should require some game mechanicking.

One Idea I have is, why not try to specify the minimum assessed amount of equipment for the mission 
to succeed? I know  it's probably hard. But reading up on game reports of the specific scenario in mind 
one could gather enough info to perhaps be able to assess the minimum required. 

That would be "level minimum" for the mission ahead, and it would, if successful give 1-2 extra renown. 
Then there'd be "level basic", giving nothing extra. 
The third could be "level surplus", perhaps even giving a negative renown if the mission was a success.

[ak-73 248]

dracopticon said:

This idea sounds in league with the atmosphere and theme of DW and Space Marines in general. 

But, if one was to take this model along in the game, it should require some game mechanicking.

One Idea I have is, why not try to specify the minimum assessed amount of equipment for the mission 
to succeed? I know  it's probably hard. But reading up on game reports of the specific scenario in mind 
one could gather enough info to perhaps be able to assess the minimum required. 

That would be "level minimum" for the mission ahead, and it would, if successful give 1-2 extra renown. 
Then there'd be "level basic", giving nothing extra. 
The third could be "level surplus", perhaps even giving a negative renown if the mission was a success.

 

Heh, I come from the other end of the spectrum - creating mechanics is too tedious. Going by gut feeling is quicker and simpler and allows for ad hoc callibration.

 

Alex