Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Which system do you guys think allow you to play an Astartes character ? I love the freedom on choice you have in your advancement in BC (not to mention the rule overhaul) and the lower xp make it easier to play along a mixed group from other systems, but I'd like to hear from other players for feedback.

Well Deathwatch. That's what the game's about.

If your gonna play a loyalist, then deathwatch.

That said, I enjoy how much more balance is in black crusade, though sadly the experience system just begs min-max players to do so.

Yes but why ? Just because it would require some work to adapt DW chapters rules (which doesn't really) to BC ?

I feel, reading BC, that the ability to chose the skills and talents you want does make it easy without having to go elite advances all the time.
The Chosen archetype covers for all tac/ass/dev classes and you are able to customize from there. After all to be placed in a Battle Company you had recieved training in all of the aspects of a SM combat doctrine.

BC is meant to cover every eventuality (or as many as it can) for a bunch of different character types going down any of a potential 5 paths.

Deathwatch is done to represent each type of Marine, and really none of my players have ever had a problem with needing Elite advances, as the four different advance tables they can choose from (Codex, Deathwatch, Chapter & Speciality) tend to cover pretty much anything they may want.

So really I think you're creating a false dilemma.

Are you telling me your players never wanted an elite advance ?

Son of Ultramar wrote:Are you telling me your players never wanted an elite advance ?

Mine did and I even gave out one but it was specifically as a roleplaying award. If one of your player's Dark Angel character wants to be the best rodeo cowboy this side of the Rock but doesn't get access to Talented: Wrangling... then you make them roleplay it out over a couple of missions and give it to them. You don't need an official chart for that.

Son of Ultramar wrote:Are you telling me your players never wanted an elite advance ?

Mine do, but 95% of the requests were just Min-Maxing douche-bags, sorry I mean players.

I did have a guy ask for the elite advance Hatred (Stairs) though...

Son of Ultramar wrote:Are you telling me your players never wanted an elite advance ?

Your point being?

The odd Elite Advance here and there hardly requires complete conversion over to a new rule set.

What's so shocking about "The best way to play Astartes is via the game that's about the Astartes"?

I don't know, maybe cause BC is almost like a 2.0 of the previous games ? Why play D&D 4.0 when 1sr edition worked so well, you know what I mean ?

Then incorporate some of the rules from BC in there (like how Semi- and Full-Auto work, how Swift/Lightning Attack is handled, and so on).

But you asked which was the best game to represent Astartes, and the answer is the best game to represent Astartes is the game that is about the Astartes.

I suppose it also comes down to what style you'd prefer - i.e. how powerful you want your Astartes to be. If you want a "300" kind of action with novel or Movie Marines, then Deathwatch seems like a no-brainer. Unnatural Traits are more powerful there, you get free Fate Points via demeanours, Corruption does not exist, and Squad Mode is essentially legalized cheating. If you want to top it off, use the original weapon stats instead of the optional errata.

Not to mention that all the books are way more geared towards Marines as well, of course. Way more equipment and specializations to choose from, plus all those Marine vehicles and various unique Chapter traits.

Lynata wrote:If you want to top it off, use the original weapon stats instead of the optional errata.

Yeah really really don't do that. That makes the game stop being fun.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lynata wrote:If you want to top it off, use the original weapon stats instead of the optional errata.

Yeah really really don't do that. That makes the game stop being fun.

It depends... my groups' devastator player had a ton of fun one-shotting everything. Unfortunately, the rest of us didn't. Have you found the errata weapon damage (which is incorporated in BC) combined with the no-extra-damage righteous fury equivalent and relative penalties for semi/full auto makes the shooting underpowered?

Not at all. Really the bonuses and penalties didn't matter in the long run because it wasn't hard to get 3-4 DOS even with -10 To Hit from Full Auto, and that was all you needed with the ubiquitous Heavy Bolter. Now that the stats are fixed it's much better.

I'm not 100% sold on the way Zealous Hatred works, but otherwise it's fine.

To clarify - I wouldn't use the non-errataed stats either ... but I have heard of many groups who enjoyed them and who supposedly wanted them back.
It just really depends on the "level of exaggerated badassery" with which you want your squad of Marines mow through hundreds of 'nids, I guess.

Many groups also seem to have combined the new damage with the old rates of fire since they missed autofire capabilities on their bolters. This I find rather understandable, stylewise.

There is only two reasons why you should use the errata weapon table:

Your party has someone with a heavy bolter.

You have noticed everyone causes furies too often.


After all, the average damage is still the same.

Not really. Not when you factor in the changes to rates of fire and the fewer instances of Fury. After that the average damage is far from the same (even if 2D10+4 is roughly the same as 1D10+9).

Plus the errata did more than just amend Bolters.

As to the rate of fire question, I think taking away Full-Auto was a good thing. Marines don't need more bonuses to their BS. They hardly ever miss anyway, so what possible reason do they need for more bonuses to hit? Plus less hits overall means less damage which means Marines don't one-shot their way through boss monsters in every fething encounter.

There's only one rate of fire in there that annoys me - the Combi-Bolter RoF. That needs to be changed to match the Bolter, not the Storm Bolter.

And speaking of the Storm Bolter, I was against it losing its Full-Auto fire mode, but having since tested it I can say that the S/4/- is a major improvement. Storm means that I basically have Full Auto anyway and it's no longer the ultimate go-to shooting weapon (outside of the Heavy Bolter). Plus it chews up specialist ammo at such a rate that you have to be careful not to waste any.