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.

Hi all,

Thinking about investing in one of the 40k RPG books, I'm not a roleplayer though, more interested in the fluff content and background info.

Leaning towards Deathwatch at the moment, as quite like the idea of more stuff about marines, but remain open minded and prepared to be swayed by your persuasive arguments!

Well, I'd say it depends a lot on what "sections" of fluff are of interest to you. Politics? Chaos? The Imperial Navy? The Space Marines? Tell us what you're looking for, and I'm sure we can recommend a few books.

Keep in mind that just like any other licensed product, FFG's books may differ from GW's interpretation of the setting, though. They are nicely written indeed (and many have input from renowned Black Library writers or even former GW designers), but there are some parts that don't quite "swing" with what you'd read in a Codex or WD article.
Not that this must discourage you, though, it's just meant as a "word of warning" in case you expect consistency. They can be great for inspiration and are a good read either way.

Basically:

Gav Thorpe wrote:Whether a particular author’s take on the world matches up with an individual gamer’s or readers is another matter. The fact that each of us is allowed to take possession of that world and envisage it to our own ideal means that it is inevitable our vision will sometimes clash with the vision of others. Such conflict does not render either vision obsolete.

Andy Hoare wrote:It all stems from the assumption that there’s a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or ‘true’ representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth.

I own most of the FFG books for Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch/Black Crusade and, yeah, what is it you're looking for? There's a *lot* of books for these games, and some focus more on a given subject or aspect of 40K than others do.

If it's SM-related stuff, Deathwatch and Rites of Battle and/or Black Crusade or Disciples of the Dark Gods (if you want Chaosy stuff) are your go-to. If you're looking for Ecclesiarch/SOB stuff, "Blood of Martyrs" is the book to get. Arbites? Get "Book of Judgement". Inquisition? Inquisitor's Handbook and "The Radical's Handbook" are where it's at. Navy stuff? "Battlefleet Koronus".

I guess I'd be looking for the book that has the most shared content with the 40k game (hence thinking Deathwatch may be the one to go for)

Ideally one with a detailed bestiary covering all sorts of Xenos and that sort of thing, but I don't think that applies to any of them, and I can't afford a copy of Xenology!

As for the inconsistencies, don't worry, I've not long been back, but I have been kicking around 40k since Rogue Trader, so I know how things can differ!

There is the Dark Heresy "Creatures Anathema", though it deals a little more with alien animals than the big xenos races. Rogue Trader ("Into the Storm") and Deathwatch ("Mark of the Xenos") have a little more on those, but not as extensive as in their TT codices (given that they are mostly meant to be antagonists).

Unfortunately, that kind of info is all over the place - not just fluff, but rules as well, and there's a number of people grumbling about how much they have to go back and forth between the books when they want to include them in a game, as one type of Eldar is in book A, another is in book B, etc...

For 40k as a whole, I think the Dark Heresy core rulebook would be your best bet, as it was the groundwork for everything that followed after, and as such contains much more extensive information on the Imperium in general than Rogue Trader or Deathwatch.

I also found this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000_Roleplay#Products

That's a bit more difficult, as each of these game-lines is focused, more or less, on a specific aspect of role-playing.

Dark Heresy is all about being a member of the retinue of an Inquisitor. Either as a Puritan, a Radical, or somewhere in between.

Rogue Trader is all about being a Rogue Trader.

Deathwatch is all about being a member of the Deathwatch Space Marines Chapter.

Black Crusade is all about being spiky and a servant of Chaos.

The "aliens" book is a Dark Heresy supplement called "Creatures Anathema". It's not bad, but only includes a few "familiar" races and several new/little-seen bad guys, but contains lots of in-universe fluff about them (as well as a fethload of game mechanics stuff).

For broad overviews of the Imperium as a whole, one (or more) of the Dark Heresy books is probably going to be your best bet, as it offers the widest range of backgrounds and character classes to choose from. Being a member of an Inquisitor's retinue, you could have been a Guardsman, a member of the Mechanicus, an assassin-for-hire, a psyker, some Adeptus Administratum scribe, a priest... so the core book "Dark Heresy" and, possibly, "The Inquisitor's Handbook" and "Ascension" might be your best choices in that.

The most of the basic fluff is in the dark heresy book.

Beyond that, deathwatch talks about space marines in detail, and rites of battle talks about the creation of a space marine chapter in the most detail anywhere.

Nothing else has that much to it, unless you are looking for sector based fluff, and there is a book for dark heresy, rogue trader, and deathwatch that explains their setting in much more detail.

Lynata wrote:Keep in mind that just like any other licensed product, FFG's books may differ from GW's interpretation of the setting, though. They are nicely written indeed (and many have input from renowned Black Library writers or even former GW designers), but there are some parts that don't quite "swing" with what you'd read in a Codex or WD article.

If GW didn't ok it, it wouldn't be in print.

Eh... not exactly.

There's some obvious variations in the RPG compared to things from the table-top game (like going from Regular Guardsman to Stormtrooper... or giving meltas a pretty significant range... or being a Guard Psyker who learns how to drive tanks and fly gunships) as well as having a SOB character that can, pretty quickly, go from Novitiate to Canoness... in my own DH campaign, I reworked the SOB tables to make Canoness less of an XP reward and more of a job title... there's little reason a Canoness would have the time to go tooling about with an Inquisitor, but a veteran Battle-Sister (or any other Order, for that matter) would.

There's also certain character classes that are drawn directly from single characters that appear for a few pages in one BL novel or another, like the Desperado, which is your typical Han Solo-gunslinger, which was the job title given to a character in one of the later Abnett stories, I forget whether this was Eisenhorn or Ravenor (I think Eisenhorn) before the guy got waxed. Abnett does, however, contribute a lot of material to FFG.

There's also the establishment of an Imperium-wide currency (the Throne Gelt), the transference from being a Hive-born gun-bunny to a Vindicare Assassin (see also: grunt Guardsman to Stormtrooper in Carapace with a Hellgun), all sorts of dubiously-canon tech, and, if you build the character to do it, back-flipping Terminators. Sure, it's harder, but it's possible.

GW licensed the property to FFG, but GW doesn't vet each book as its written. Fortunately, FFG handles the property pretty well... arguably better than certain recent GW publications.

They all cover very different areas of the fluff with some different takes on each level.

You can pretty much view deathwatch as "300" with Space Marines.

Dark Heresy is more of a Sherlock Holmes/Lovecraftian horror type deal done at the lowest levels of the Imperium, most things are rather mundane compared with most of the stuff you're used to seeing in the 40k universe and combat doesn't take as central a role.

Rogue trader is more your typical Grand Adventure type deal that involves a lot of exploring and sandboxing.

Black Crusade is a bit of all of these, the human characters are more advanced than DH, the CSM's I think start a bit below Deathwatch level, and they're basically out on a grand adventure to achieve whatever dark goals the PC's have.

Psienesis wrote:Eh... not exactly.

No. Exactly.

GW not ok = not go to print.

There is no other way around it.

Psienesis wrote:Abnett does, however, contribute a lot of material to FFG.

Really? Where does he contribute exactly?

Psienesis wrote:GW licensed the property to FFG, but GW doesn't vet each book as its written.

You sure about that?

H.B.M.C. wrote:No. Exactly.
GW not ok = not go to print.
There is no other way around it.

The issue is somewhat more complicated than that.

GW is okay with it ... because GW doesn't care all that much what some outsourced company comes up with.

"It all stems from the assumption that there’s a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or ‘true’ representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."
- Andy Hoare, former GW designer, now writing for FFG (<- !)

"The fact that each of us is allowed to take possession of that world and envisage it to our own ideal means that it is inevitable our vision will sometimes clash with the vision of others. Such conflict does not render either vision obsolete."
- Gav Thorpe, former GW designer, now writing for Black Library

And that's why we get stuff like Goto's Multilaser Marines. It's all about perception. Actually, I'm fairly certain that the foreword of the Deathwatch RPG flat out includes a line like "different ideas than the GW team".

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Psienesis wrote:Abnett does, however, contribute a lot of material to FFG.

Really? Where does he contribute exactly?

Abnett wrote the Calixis Sector and large parts of the original core rulebook.
Granted, that was still back when the RPG was owned by the now-defunct Black Industries.

"Comprehensive background on the Calixis Sector, the official setting for Dark Heresy written by best-selling Warhammer 40,000 novelists Dan Abnett and Ben Counter."
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp?eidm=50&esem=2

Lynata wrote:The issue is somewhat more complicated than that.

Is it really?

Lynata wrote:GW is okay with it ... because GW doesn't care all that much what some outsourced company comes up with.

I’m really am wondering how you know that...

Lynata wrote:Abnett wrote the Calixis Sector and large parts of the original core rulebook. Granted, that was still back when the RPG was owned by the now-defunct Black Industries.

So he wrote a the background material in one core rulebook years ago. Ok. What’s he contributed since then?

The Desperado class in Rogue Trader is named for, and based upon, a character he presented in Hereticus. From the looks of it, Abnett wrote the specs for it and just emailed it to them. It's Han Solo in 40K.

GW doesn't "approve" jack for the people licensing their IP. This is how Relic can have a completely different Chapter Captain in the Ultramarines than the UM Codex states, how we can have a Loyalist Legion led by a Khornate sorcerer, a single Guardsman lugging a Heavy Bolter around and, with a couple points spent, not bothering with bracing it or anything, and a Chapter Homeworld actually housing a warp-gate that (poorly) contains a Great Unclean One... meanwhile followers of Nurgle and/or Khorne serving this Greater Daemon are also summoning Pink and Blue Horrors, which are Tzeentchian daemons, which are diametrically opposed to Nurgle... this may not matter as much in current editions as it used to, but, hey, Relic can pretty much do what it wants with the DoW series.

H.B.M.C. wrote:What’s he contributed since then?

I don't think he wrote for them again. Maybe in the Inquisitor's Handbook? Of course, some of his published material may have been adopted by other authors, explaining what Psienesis meant.

FFG is recruiting Black Library authors to help out with their books all the time, though, trying to make their material mesh with popular novels. The latest example would probably be Matthew Farrer, the author of the Shira Calpurnia novels, for the "Book of Judgment" Arbites supplement.

And then, if said novels or their authors contradict GW material, it's hardly surprising when the RPG book will end up showing a similar disparity. Not that it would matter much - most buyers are probably more into the novels than GW Codices, anyways, so it's really only catering to the majority of the target audience.

Psienesis wrote:GW doesn't "approve" jack for the people licensing their IP. This is how Relic can have a completely different Chapter Captain in the Ultramarines than the UM Codex states, how we can have a Loyalist Legion led by a Khornate sorcerer, a single Guardsman lugging a Heavy Bolter around and, with a couple points spent, not bothering with bracing it or anything, and a Chapter Homeworld actually housing a warp-gate that (poorly) contains a Great Unclean One... meanwhile followers of Nurgle and/or Khorne serving this Greater Daemon are also summoning Pink and Blue Horrors, which are Tzeentchian daemons, which are diametrically opposed to Nurgle... this may not matter as much in current editions as it used to, but, hey, Relic can pretty much do what it wants with the DoW series.

To be fair, it all depends on how that approval process looks like. Gav Thorpe's blog goes into some detail regarding that; it's quite an interesting read: http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/jumping-the-fence/

As far as Guardsmen lugging heavy bolters around, this one is actually no contradiction - Sergeant Harker and Ox can do so as well. The "only spending a couple points" merely reflects the usual issue of RPGs where people learn how to go from inexperienced farmer to master swordsman within a single month of a campaign.

The only weird thing is that in FFG's world, it is apparently okay to carry a gun that is twice as heavy as a Marine boltgun, has three times the RoF of a Marine boltgun, fires ammunition that is 125% the size of a Marine boltgun's and does more damage than a Marine boltgun ... yet the same shooter is utterly incapable of using said Marine bolter itself. One of the biggest issues I have with BI's/FFG's P&P - because it just seems so goddamn arbitrary and unnecessary. Apart from, once again, contradicting studio material.

Humans can use Marine weapons in the 40K RPG’s. They just count as being one step bigger (so a Astartes/Legion Bolt Pistol is a Basic Weapon for a human, an Astartes/Legion Boltgun is a heavy weapon for a human, and so on). Not really that big a deal if you ask me.

In DH/DW, an actual Astartes-class weapon will simply not function for someone without Astartes Geneseed. The Warspirit of the weapon is gravely offended by being handled by "lesser beings".


And, yeah, in DH, you can build some truly sick weapons. My DH group has a guy who carries a twin-linked, storm autocannon and another guy who lugs a twin-linked, storm assault cannon with a fire selector so that this motherfether has 3 200-round drums attached. It empties one drum in like 3 rounds of sustained fire.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Humans can use Marine weapons in the 40K RPG’s. They just count as being one step bigger (so a Astartes/Legion Bolt Pistol is a Basic Weapon for a human, an Astartes/Legion Boltgun is a heavy weapon for a human, and so on). Not really that big a deal if you ask me.

Well, apart from the "violent machine spirit" Psienesis mentioned (I suppose this is the DNA scanner linked to an internal explosive) it is a pretty big deal when we keep in mind the penalties affiliated with these weapon groups.

Not to mention that the "+1 weapon size" rule is just as arbitrary as everything else. It doesn't even take the weapon itself into consideration. Example: An Astartes bolt pistol weighs 5.5 kg. A human bolt pistol model weighs 4.5 kg. Why again is the Astartes pistol supposed to be closer to a human's 7kg boltgun? (to take the lightest human bolter - the average actually seems to be around 9kg in these books)
Just as this rule cannot be avoided by characters who, by excessively pushing their strength (like Ox or Harker), end up being just as strong as a Space Marine. All the RAW does is basically looking at you and going "You're not a Marine, you don't get to play with the shiny toys."

Though I'm not actually complaining about penalties on the usage of Astartes-size penalty, to be honest. But I am thinking the artificial gap between Marine guns and "civilian" weapons is utter silliness contradicted by a number of GW books, by extension negatively affecting the perception of entire organizations in FFG's version of the fluff, and finally it is this design philosophy that has eliminated the sweet potential for mixed groups as it exists in GW's own Inquisitor RPG.
Perhaps it should also be pointed out that the very first appearance of a Marine bolter in Dark Heresy had an average damage similar to that of a normal human's - things only went crazy as soon as DW came out.

But I vaguely recall we went over this already. That said, do you personally think that this change in perception/portrayal was warranted, and that it was the best course for the game - or all four games?

(Yes, I'm ranting. I tend to do this when I like something but then get to see it could have been *so much better*)

Marine Bolt weapons aren't that much better than standard ones. The ones in the original Deathwatch rules were, of course, but once Black Crusade hit and they changed 'em around it became far better.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Marine Bolt weapons aren't that much better than standard ones. The ones in the original Deathwatch rules were, of course, but once Black Crusade hit and they changed 'em around it became far better.

I'd disagree - as far as I recall right now, the BC bolters are the same as the DW Errata, and a loss of 1.5 points in average damage isn't that much of a change, regardless of how some players see it as a nerf (I guess they only see the reduction in maximum damage, but not the raise in minimum).
And it's still a 33% boost in weapon power. Considering how armour and toughness work in that game, this stat hits exactly in the span between not doing any damage at all and actually hurting the opponent.
I for one consider it quite weird that Space Marines in DW are immune to, say, an Inquisitor's bolter. With 20 years of equal weaponry established, there shouldn't be any change in the first place, not even a single point.

It's a matter of principle. Someone thought "Spess Mehreens are not awesome enough!" - I think they were.

The SM's in FFG games are in many ways exaggerated herohammer marines (again, "300" but with Space Marines) and should be treated as such. A marine in FFG games is completely unable to be harmed by lasgun fire, many grenades, heavy stubbers, non-SM bolt weapons, etc and only likely to take minor damage from many heavy weapons unless basically being fired on by an entire platoon or a company of opponents, which is rather silly (there should be a chance of harm for hitting unarmored spots and the like)

That said, the big (deserved) nerf to bolters wasn't just in damage, but there's less chance of Righteous Fury as well.

I have no idea what they were thinking when they designed the original DW bolt weapon stats.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lynata wrote:Keep in mind that just like any other licensed product, FFG's books may differ from GW's interpretation of the setting, though. They are nicely written indeed (and many have input from renowned Black Library writers or even former GW designers), but there are some parts that don't quite "swing" with what you'd read in a Codex or WD article.

If GW didn't ok it, it wouldn't be in print.

Let's be realistic. GW is more concerned with dollars than continuity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:The SM's in FFG games are in many ways exaggerated herohammer marines (again, "300" but with Space Marines) and should be treated as such. A marine in FFG games is completely unable to be harmed by lasgun fire, many grenades, heavy stubbers, non-SM bolt weapons, etc and only likely to take minor damage from many heavy weapons unless basically being fired on by an entire platoon or a company of opponents, which is rather silly (there should be a chance of harm for hitting unarmored spots and the like)

You mean.... like the way they had been described? Just as you criticize the mechanics of FFGs games, remember that the tabletop rules are written to sell models. If Marines were super powerful on the tabletop, they'd cost more points, then you wouldn't have to buy as many of them. And GW would make less money.

I have no idea what they were thinking when they designed the original DW bolt weapon stats.

Probably, again, because they read the description of them. An armor piercing, delayed blast munition. That kind of weapon would be catastrophically damaging in real life to living tissue. A combination of fragmentary and internal concussive damage would absolutely obliterate soft tissue and the explosive force would have secondary effects on nearby internal organs.

Rules =/= fluff. They are designed to make playable games, not to be 100% realistic depictions of a given setting.

Lynata wrote:I'd disagree - as far as I recall right now, the BC bolters are the same as the DW Errata, and a loss of 1.5 points in average damage isn't that much of a change, regardless of how some players see it as a nerf (I guess they only see the reduction in maximum damage, but not the raise in minimum).
And it's still a 33% boost in weapon power. Considering how armour and toughness work in that game, this stat hits exactly in the span between not doing any damage at all and actually hurting the opponent.

It's not the damage. It's the multiple d10's. Rolling 1d10+9 w/Tearing is very different to 2d10+5 w/Tearing, especially when the former only has Semi-Auto and the latter has Full-Auto. The difference between the 'normal' and the Astartes one is 5 points of damage now, not potentially 10 points and another Righteous Fury roll.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:]You mean.... like the way they had been described? Just as you criticize the mechanics of FFGs games, remember that the tabletop rules are written to sell models. If Marines were super powerful on the tabletop, they'd cost more points, then you wouldn't have to buy as many of them. And GW would make less money.

When were Marines completely immune (as opposed to highly resistant) to small arms fire? In FFG games, without the Horde mechanic, it's literally impossible for hand grenades, assault rifles, and highly unlikely for heavy machine guns, bolters, etc to harm a Space Marine, which shouldn't be the case except in the derpiest of Goto fluff.

I don't have a problem with a Space Marine shrugging off lots of firepower, they shouldn't be completely immune to small arms however, at least not to the point where you need dozens of them to make it even *possible* as opposed to merely highly unlikely.

Probably, again, because they read the description of them. An armor piercing, delayed blast munition. That kind of weapon would be catastrophically damaging in real life to living tissue. A combination of fragmentary and internal concussive damage would absolutely obliterate soft tissue and the explosive force would have secondary effects on nearby internal organs.

And when they were routinely more effective than plasma weapons, even guard issue tank mounted Heavy Bolters and the like, something was wrong, and one will notice that they had to go back and rectify that because you had entire parties going around with nothing but basic bolters leveling cities and cutting down Hive Tyrants in short order.

Rules =/= fluff. They are designed to make playable games, not to be 100% realistic depictions of a given setting.

Right, and I think the FFG marines are, or were, off on both counts to an extent.

Lots of the older, Pre-Black Library fluff stories described Space Marines as absurdly tough, with single squads wiping out large groups of enemies, and the loss of a single Marine being a significant and noteworthy instance. FFG may have goofed up the mechanics when they lacked the ability of the individual to ever hurt a Space Marine, or its comparative power to special weapons like the plasma gun, but the idea that the individual Guardsman has almost no chance beyond blind luck or extreme skill to stop a Marine is pretty consistent with the fluff.

As far as the differentiation in bolter power levels, I'll make no judgment since I'm not familiar enough with the mechanics of the FFG games to make an informed argument. However, it's entirely possible that Marine bolters fire larger caliber rounds. After all, the Marine version of the bolt gun is significantly larger, allowing greater ammunition capacity and larger bore sizes. Take for example the closely related G3 and G36 rifles manufactured by Heckler & Koch. They are similar in appearance and mechanicals (gun nuts please stop frothing now, we're talking to non-gun nuts). However, a big reason why NATO armies went to a smaller round was due to the inability of the standard human infantryman to carry large amounts of the 7.62x51N round compared to the 5.56x45N round. In game terms, both might be called autoguns, but the G3 would be more damaging per hit. The Space Marine would have no trouble carrying or maneuvering the G3, nor the weight of its ammunition at the same quantity a normal human might carry 5.56. It's entirely believable that the Marine Bolter is just a larger, more powerful version than the normal human can carry.

I understand that FFGs fluff may or may not support this idea, but remember that war games typically aren't designed by actual warriors. /shrug. YMMV.

Vaktathi wrote:When were Marines completely immune (as opposed to highly resistant) to small arms fire? In FFG games, without the Horde mechanic, it's literally impossible for hand grenades, assault rifles, and highly unlikely for heavy machine guns, bolters, etc to harm a Space Marine, which shouldn't be the case except in the derpiest of Goto fluff.

I don't have a problem with a Space Marine shrugging off lots of firepower, they shouldn't be completely immune to small arms however, at least not to the point where you need dozens of them to make it even *possible* as opposed to merely highly unlikely.

Singling out the Marine as being the only ones with this problem isn't quite right. There are certain things in Dark Heresy that can be immune to fire. With the right armour they can become immune to small-arms, and some creatures (Orks) are immune in the same way Marines are.

So, in summary, all of them but none of them?!

Nah... if you want a broad idea of the universe, the various organizations in the Imperium, a cross-section of how a variety of worlds function in the Imperium, and how the common person gets on with life in the Imperium, the Dark Heresy core rulebook is going to be your pick.

If SM are your thing, then the Death Watch core rulebook and Rites of Battle are what you want.

If you're more interested in the Imperial Navy and Rogue Traders, then the Rogue Trader core rulebook and its supplement, Battlefleet Koronus, are going to be what you want.

If it's Sisters and Ecclesiarchy stuff, then Blood of Martyrs is fine.

Arbites and law? Book of Judgment.

Xenos? Creatures Anathema. Though nothing in this book is written from a neutral perspective, it's a "Monster Manual" for Dark Heresy, so the pro-Imperial slant is obvious. However, the core rulebook for each of the titles also features an Antagonists section, which will include information on enemies such as Orks, Eldar and Tau, but it's not particularly in-depth.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Singling out the Marine as being the only ones with this problem isn't quite right.

They aren't, just the most high profile ones

There are certain things in Dark Heresy that can be immune to fire. With the right armour they can become immune to small-arms, and some creatures (Orks) are immune in the same way Marines are.

Can they? I seem to remember them not being all that bad, especially when shotguns are available. I don't have the stats in front of me so I could be wrong, but I don't remember them being *that* resilient, just annoyingly so, haven't played a campaign with them in a while, though it may be a good excuse to look at them again for the next run through.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Lots of the older, Pre-Black Library fluff stories described Space Marines as absurdly tough, with single squads wiping out large groups of enemies, and the loss of a single Marine being a significant and noteworthy instance.

Right, and I don't have an issue with that, only the portrayal that they're completely immune to general infantry carried weapons.

FFG may have goofed up the mechanics when they lacked the ability of the individual to ever hurt a Space Marine, or its comparative power to special weapons like the plasma gun, but the idea that the individual Guardsman has almost no chance beyond blind luck or extreme skill to stop a Marine is pretty consistent with the fluff.

Again, don't have an issue with SM's being overwhelmingly more capable than a guardsmen, my issue is when it's not even possible for the guardsmen to inflict *any* level of harm.

As far as the differentiation in bolter power levels, I'll make no judgment since I'm not familiar enough with the mechanics of the FFG games to make an informed argument. However, it's entirely possible that Marine bolters fire larger caliber rounds. After all, the Marine version of the bolt gun is significantly larger, allowing greater ammunition capacity and larger bore sizes. Take for example the closely related G3 and G36 rifles manufactured by Heckler & Koch. They are similar in appearance and mechanicals (gun nuts please stop frothing now, we're talking to non-gun nuts). However, a big reason why NATO armies went to a smaller round was due to the inability of the standard human infantryman to carry large amounts of the 7.62x51N round compared to the 5.56x45N round. In game terms, both might be called autoguns, but the G3 would be more damaging per hit. The Space Marine would have no trouble carrying or maneuvering the G3, nor the weight of its ammunition at the same quantity a normal human might carry 5.56. It's entirely believable that the Marine Bolter is just a larger, more powerful version than the normal human can carry.

Right, and this is another thing I don't have a problem with in concept, only when they ended up being more powerful than Plasma Guns, with bolt rounds that hit harder than tank mounted IG Heavy Bolters, and the like, and FFG eventually realized this and knocked them down to a more reasonable level where they are still very potent weapons, and clearly superior to normal human models, but aren't outmatching vehicle mounted heavy weapons and exotic energy weapons like they originally were. I think after multiple stories of playgroups tackling enemies like hive tyrants with nothing but basic bolter fire with ease they realized their mistake