Gokerz said:

Theres no imbalance because there is nothing to balance. Having a PF/SP of 20/20 or a PF/SP zillion/zillion on this chart is irrelevant. because on the whole those using it see that its not meant to be balanced. Perhaps the text is too nuanced but its stiil there:

As per the Using the path heading of p.33 it makes it clear that using the path is a choice that the GM and players make to help

"the players feel more involved in their groups campaign, having made the choices that affect the groups starting level of profitthe starship they use to explore the unknown"

Futher more

"Selections on the very edge of the row are considered the extreems of that rows theme"

In short the if there INBUILT in the warrant path table the ability to take a totally extreem positions (choices) on either endany variation that you may want. Its a tool for creating a more fun background as the expense of having as you put it balancepeople can make choices on the background have an inkling of how that background would affect the SPPF because they would rather have an interesting background in keeping with th Calyxsis sector that the introductory balance system in the core rulebook which is a simplified system for people who perhaps have no idea of the setting 

Imbalance in the Warrant path? 

There is no pretention that there was meant to be any from the start. 

Captain Harlock said:

Yes, there is nothing to balance about the Warrant Path, except the Warrant Path. Which is unbalanced enough that several people have already shown up to say that it irks them,even more have given ideas on how to fix that imbalance. You cannot wish it away by saying it doesn't exist. It may not be big, many people may not even notice or be affected, but that is something completely different than it not existing.

Also, those quotes you bring up talk about something different, as taking the choices at the edges of the Path has no connection to the imbalance. Taking an "extreme" option is not what decides whether you have the optimala decreased amount of starting points.

Basically, right now the Warrant Path punishes you if you take a second row option that is to the right of your first row option, and gives you extra if you take a second row option that is to the left of your first row choice. Does your book talk about that imbalance between going left and going right anywhere? Note: the first row doesn't actually matter, it's your second choice that decides how optimal the amount of points you get is.

Gokerz said:

Yes, you are commiting a logical fallacy. Starting with a 38PF instead of a 40PF is not an imbalance. It cannot be an imbalance since there is nothing to balance it against.

You arent competing against other rogue traders who used the warrant path to get a higher PFSP. Having a 38PF/38SP does not put you at a disadvantage compared to 40PF/40SP. Why? Because you arent competing against the GM. All that the lower quantities mean is that you start out with one less bell on your ship,one less whistle in your pocket.

Guess what? If you play the game, you can get that bellwhistle!

What you dont seem to understand is that the only way that the lower PF/SP could be a real disadvantage is if you are in some group situation where several PC rogue traders are competing to get a real life prize. Like at a conventionsomething. Then taking the lower path is a disadvantage.

As a matter of fact, if you were to make your objective for the game to reach a specific PFhave a specific ship, then the lower values are actually better because you would have to play the game more to reach your goal. And isnt playing the game kinda the point?

I only read the first page... But my plan is to simply give out the same total of profit and ship points regardless.

 Since all of the starting SP/PF results in the core rulebook equal 90 I went ahead and added some "wiggle room" after using the WoT Origin Chart.

My group ended up a few points shy of that magic 90 number so those spare points they could simply use for SP or for PF once done.

Otherwise, I found the concepts/choices to be very useful. Some of them don't seem to work as well, example: most of the Sanction results lean towards newer Age than the old options, but its easy enough to correct.

My group ended up not being happy with any of the Sanction options so I just called it "Custom" and slipped the needed SP/PF there to make it balance.

They ended up with:

Warrant Age: Age of Redemption
Fortune & Fate: Stable
Acquisition: Administratum Trade Mandate
Sanction: Custom
Contacts: Merchant House
Warrant Renown: Unknown
Starting Ship Points: 54
Starting Profit Factor: 36+2 (the +2 is from player origin paths)

At least the ad hominem has stopped.

But seriously it never helps to include stuff like that.

Ontopic:

The warrant path works perfectly. It is unbalanced, yes great that makes it even better. RPGs are not tabletops, they need to gives us rules that work at representing a fiction of a reality.

Balance needs to be existant when players compare against each other. No one wants to be the warrior with a sword +3 while the mage does all the actual work.

The ship path is a tool of all the players. What does it need to balance against? Are you as a GM running your own GM NPC RT troupe that will always show up to haunt the players? Oh heck even then there is no need to balance.

Explorators can push their Tech Use past 100 at rank 1. I still do not believe that a RT will scream foul if his command skill isnt at such atrociously high levels. BTW Tech use can be so high you dont even need to roll for hellish tasks, unless the GM takes some toys away; but i dont feel threatened by this, rather it only reinforces the idea that the Adpetus Mechanicus is really good at what it does, once you are sufficiently good. DH characters i havent looked at that closely.

let me see if i have the two arguments correctly

one side is saying "this is a Role Playing Game, so a chart which helps you to define how your players came to stand where they stand is a good thing!" some small power differences do occur as a result of differing choices, but they are based on concrete story-based facts, so they shouldn't be a problem. the players choose their own beginning, so if they want more power without worrying about fluff, they can have it, and if they want to reduce their power for the benefit of role playing, then that is up to them.

the other side is saying "i am used to playing world of warcraft where everything has to be perfectly balanced with everything else, so i think that a role-playing game based on roleplaying rather than a strict balance of numbers is wrong and should be expunged and i don't care that there is another set of rules that do what i am looking for because this set of rules does not." this is a silly argument which is based too much on expectations for video games rather than the reality of pen-and-paper role playing where, if a DM thinks that a rule will get in the way of his/her groups fun THEY ARE EXPECTED TO USE SOME INITIATIVE AND LEAVE IT OUT. you might as well say "the musket and las pistol are both lasgun don't have the exact same stats, so the rules should be changed so they do" as it has as much relevance to the balance of the game

from france

  yes it s unbalaced and so? don't get me wrong tou find something that is not well build and feel alone because almost every one told you that it doesn't matter for them.  i can understand both position but honestly i read the path  i didn't like it. i didn't use it instead i just roll on the core rulebook.

i wasn't happy with the result but instead of moaning  i heavily modfied a jericho  and believe or not i am happy with it after. and for the backround it s a new warrant  and the ship speciality is just base on the wolf in sheep clothing.

all in all exept for rule for building ship i juste use my imagination

I'm looking at starting up an new RT game and I just spent some time looking at the Ship and Warrant Path again. I really don't like it. Not just for the number crunching reasons, but because options that should exist are restricted.

Some examples:

Almost all of the Sanction events are either late Age of Redemption or are firmly in The Waning period, but houses founded in these times can not gain their Warrant through Reward (despite The Meritech Wars specifically saying that Warrants were granted in such a way). For that matter, Intrigue is only a means that very old houses used to gain a Warrant which conflicts with what the entry says. And if Warrants from the Age of Apostasy are supposed to be so uncommon (see the text for that period), why is it in the center of the table where less 'extreme' options are supposed to be? It is impossible to create a new house founded during The Waning that is anything but Ascending or a Rising Star (no Struggling new comers?). Take a look at Fall of the Tellurion Combine - it should fit well with Fallen from Grace, but it doesn't have any way of matching up.

So, with all of those options seeming interesting to me, I'm going to stick with the far simpler yet more flexible table from the Core Rulebook.

Yes, it is unbalanced, yes it should be houseruled, but yes this game has intentional imbalances all over the place, and this particular game fosters a feel in the rules and the setting that 'sometimes, bad stuff happens. deal.', and thus many groups don't find issue with imbalances, having taken this thematic cue from the rules and the setting itself.

Gavinfoxx said:

What about issues with restrictions that run counter to the background and timeline of the KE/CS? See my previous post for a few examples.

Wow………..  *headache from reading all the previous posts*  I should of just skipped to the very end and saved myself an Aspirin.  Though one a day does keep a heart attack at bay. 

Anyhoot, for your problem HappyDaze I would go with a free chart on the Ship Warrant and Origin Path and take out the SP, PF, and xeno/archaeotech rewards/results.  Once you have the story down on the Ship and Warrant's Origin, then go with the Core Rulebooks PF/SP chart, and houserule (at your desire) if the group get any xeno/archaeotech.  An additional option is a -5 SP/PF per tech they get up to a max of 1 or 2. 

Oddly enough, this is almost what I had done.  I had two separate groups that made ships use the core rules, and later when I purchased ITS, I let them pick whatever out of it to create a back story to their warrant with no penalties or bonuses except in the fluff sense.  This is just my opinion though, and even using this suggestion will net conflicting stories/choices.  Player discretion is advised.    Happy gaming HappyDaze!

I myself like the chart. I do not find it "Unbalanced" as you have no set standard PF and SP for all groups. Each game , even using core is "Unbalanced" then as group one can get 20 PF and group two can get 60 PF. The Path is not about points, its about placing the chorice for background in the hands of the players.

Hunterindarkness said:

In that, it simply fails. When perfectly reasonably choices are restricted by the path, then the path really fails to place the choice for background in the hands of the players.