Jump to content



Photo

Chain Weapons vs. Power Field


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#21 Kshatriya

Kshatriya

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 31 May 2014 - 04:03 PM

Chaos may not have as easy access to power weapons, but Chaos still has Forge Worlds, which trade good and services with everything from heretic pirates to CSM warbands. So again it really depends on what's needed for your story. A CSM warband that mimics the Raven Guard combo of jump pack + lightning claws is just as valid as the ones who go the classic chainaxe route.


  • [S]ir[B]ardiel likes this

#22 [S]ir[B]ardiel

[S]ir[B]ardiel

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 31 May 2014 - 06:24 PM

You are absolutely right, but I'm just looking at NPCs for simplicity sake



#23 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,106 posts

Posted 01 June 2014 - 12:58 AM

Or, if you're an Astarte sergeant, you basically are given one as a mark of office, to wield into battle as you lead your squad. Your squad who, while they may have chainswords, are also armed with power armor and ranged weapons that most people only hear about in stories and never see in real life. A given Brother's supply chain is literally something they don't worry about except in the field when low on ammo; the rest of the time, it's a pure given that they will be supplied with the gear they need for the mission. Meaning each Astarte chapter probably has at least 100 power swords - 1 for each Sergeant, and probably more for special formations, or surplus.

 

It's quite a stretch to assume that every single Astartes grunt squad Sergeant is given a power weapon as a "badge of office" just because this is an option in the TT. The key factor here is that it's an option, not a standard. The same Sergeant may also take a plasma pistol and a teleport homer, but that doesn't make it the default loadout.

 

Going just by the Deathwatch RPG's core rulebook, "power weapons require great investments of time and rare materials to produce" and are "therefore typically reserved for ranking members of the Adeptus Astartes" and "popular with officers". So if even the Adeptus Astartes, where every Chapter has its very own forge and production chain, is incapable of acquiring a great deal of these weapons, then I daresay that the traitorous Chaos Legions are even more hard-pressed for such advanced weaponry. This, along with their innate desire for carnage and violence, may be a huge reason for why chain weapons are a lot more popular with CSM NPC profiles.

 

And if you do come across the one-in-a-hundred enemies that does wield a power weapon, just shoot him before he gets close?


current 40k RPG character: Aura Vashaan, Astromancer Witch-Priestess
previous characters: Captain Elias (Celestial Lions Chapter -- debriefed), Comrade-Trooper Dasha Malenko (1207th Valhallan Ice Warriors -- KIA), Sister Elana (Order of the Sacred Rose -- assassinated), Leftenant Darion Baylesworth (Rogue Trader Artemisia -- retired), Taleera "Raven" Nephran (Hive Ganger & Inquisitorial Assassin -- mindwiped)

#24 [S]ir[B]ardiel

[S]ir[B]ardiel

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 01 June 2014 - 07:33 AM

Going just by the Deathwatch RPG's core rulebook, power weapons start at renown 20.

Which is fairly low


  • Kshatriya likes this

#25 Kshatriya

Kshatriya

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 01 June 2014 - 09:33 AM

It's quite a stretch to assume that every single Astartes grunt squad Sergeant is given a power weapon as a "badge of office" just because this is an option in the TT. The key factor here is that it's an option, not a standard. The same Sergeant may also take a plasma pistol and a teleport homer, but that doesn't make it the default loadout.

 

I don't think it's a stretch to say that if it's an option for every sergeant, that the Chapter has a sufficient number to outfit every sergeant if every sergeant were so inclined.

 

 

Going just by the Deathwatch RPG's core rulebook, "power weapons require great investments of time and rare materials to produce" and are "therefore typically reserved for ranking members of the Adeptus Astartes" and "popular with officers". 

Right, but the fluff clearly doesn't agree with the crunch there. 20 Req/Respected (which is, what, 3-4 mission in to a game starting at Renown 0), or Sig Wargear if you're a Tacmarine who takes a chargen Deed (and I see like 80% of Tacmarines in actual games do this, because it is a steal). I like the fluff, don't get me wrong, but in the "high end" game lines (RT/DW) it's very much a flavor that doesn't pan out in the realities of who your characters are, unlike in DH.

 

 

And if you do come across the one-in-a-hundred enemies that does wield a power weapon, just shoot him before he gets close?

 

Agreed! Or punch him. you can't sever natural attacks IIRC.


Edited by Kshatriya, 01 June 2014 - 09:34 AM.

  • [S]ir[B]ardiel likes this

#26 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,106 posts

Posted 01 June 2014 - 10:38 AM

I don't think it's a stretch to say that if it's an option for every sergeant, that the Chapter has a sufficient number to outfit every sergeant if every sergeant were so inclined.

 

Hmm, depends on how you interpret those rules. Does the Imperium also have enough power weapons to give every single Sergeant in the Imperial Guard one? Because it's an option there, too.

 

In my opinion, the minimum standard is defined by whatever a unit starts with by its default profile. Wargear options represent battlefield trophies, heirlooms, rewards for exemplary behaviour, or a specialist formation that has been given priority in terms of equipment distribution.

 

But let's assume for a moment that you are spot on: If the Space Marines would intentionally eschew power weapons even if they could give them to every 9th dude in the Chapter, wouldn't this mean that the player this thread is about is spot-on with his refusal? ;)

 

Right, but the fluff clearly doesn't agree with the crunch there.

 

Well, I'd say this is an effect of the Deathwatch having better access than the regular Astartes Chapter! Do note that the fluff was referring to Space Marine Chapters in general.

 

I only disagree with the idea of your off-the-mill Marine Chapter having that much advanced gear lying around, not its availability in the Deathwatch RPG.

 

Agreed! Or punch him. you can't sever natural attacks IIRC.

 

... which is quite weird if we think about it! I'd be tempted to houserule it (just like power weapons also destroying an attacker's weapon by parrying, instead of just when being parried), but whilst realistic, I suppose it might be too punishing.  :unsure:

 

Actually, thinking about it - if power weapons in this game can only destroy other weapons when they are being parried, why not just Dodge instead? There's no way an opponent can actually force you to parry him. Problem solved! :P


current 40k RPG character: Aura Vashaan, Astromancer Witch-Priestess
previous characters: Captain Elias (Celestial Lions Chapter -- debriefed), Comrade-Trooper Dasha Malenko (1207th Valhallan Ice Warriors -- KIA), Sister Elana (Order of the Sacred Rose -- assassinated), Leftenant Darion Baylesworth (Rogue Trader Artemisia -- retired), Taleera "Raven" Nephran (Hive Ganger & Inquisitorial Assassin -- mindwiped)

#27 Moirdryd

Moirdryd

    Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 01 June 2014 - 10:42 AM

Yep, the Power Field effect does nothing against a Natural Attack, likewise you can shoot them with your bolt pistol up close in case they're armoured (Kraken rounds are your friend here). TBH though I don't see the value in taking a Chainsword or even an Eviscerator as Sig Wargear. You can normally afford a normal one out of Requisition anyway and the MC bonuses are not That great.



#28 Kshatriya

Kshatriya

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 01 June 2014 - 10:52 AM

Actually, thinking about it - if power weapons in this game can only destroy other weapons when they are being parried, why not just Dodge instead? There's no way an opponent can actually force you to parry him. Problem solved! :P

 

Sundering procs on the power-weapon-wielding-defender's Parry Reaction, not a power-weapon-wielding-attacker's Attack action that happens to be parried. So it's always the defender's call whether they try to parry and sunder the attacker's chain weapon.

 

I'm not sure that came across right.

 

Eldar E is armed with a power sword and is attacking Astartes A, who has a chainsword. E attacks and A can choose to dodge or parry; he picks parry for whatever reason. However E's Power Field sunder rule does not apply; there is no chance to sunder per the rules on p. 143. Then A's initiative comes up. A attacks E; E parries successfully and gets to roll for his power sword's Power Field to sunder A's chainsword.



#29 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,106 posts

Posted 01 June 2014 - 11:04 AM

D'oh, you're right - for some reason my brain had it filed the other way around!

Guess it shows that I've never used a power weapon so far.  :ph34r:


current 40k RPG character: Aura Vashaan, Astromancer Witch-Priestess
previous characters: Captain Elias (Celestial Lions Chapter -- debriefed), Comrade-Trooper Dasha Malenko (1207th Valhallan Ice Warriors -- KIA), Sister Elana (Order of the Sacred Rose -- assassinated), Leftenant Darion Baylesworth (Rogue Trader Artemisia -- retired), Taleera "Raven" Nephran (Hive Ganger & Inquisitorial Assassin -- mindwiped)

#30 Kshatriya

Kshatriya

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 01 June 2014 - 11:09 AM

Yeah I think allowing E to sunder on both offense and defense is really OP. It may make more sense for it to only work when you attack with a power field and that field is parried, putting the onus on the defender to dodge or get sundered...I dunno. It certainly world make sense for it to proc both when parried and when parrying, but again, that's really good.


  • Lynata likes this

#31 [S]ir[B]ardiel

[S]ir[B]ardiel

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 01 June 2014 - 11:24 AM

 

Actually, thinking about it - if power weapons in this game can only destroy other weapons when they are being parried, why not just Dodge instead? There's no way an opponent can actually force you to parry him. Problem solved! :P

 

Assmarines [lawl] are usually better at parrying than dodging

 

 

Yep, the Power Field effect does nothing against a Natural Attack, likewise you can shoot them with your bolt pistol up close in case they're armoured (Kraken rounds are your friend here). TBH though I don't see the value in taking a Chainsword or even an Eviscerator as Sig Wargear. You can normally afford a normal one out of Requisition anyway and the MC bonuses are not That great.

It's all about the style

 

 

 

By the way, I figure the attacking weapon would shatter IF the defending weapon was BLOCKING, which is a bad parry.

A good parry is done deflecting the attack, for blocking said attack would require lot more energy and wouldn't provide chances to counterattack like a parry would.

 

But a power sword can shatter enemies weapons, and an adequate swordsman know to use it to his advantage and would try to BLOCK attacking non-power weapons and would not try to block power weapons if he has none.  [that's why vanilla an attacking power sword cannot shatter stuff in combat, i guess]

 

I'll personally house rule that:

 

A power weapon attacking a non-power weapon has no chances to shatter said weapon, for noone sane would BLOCK a sword that can pulverize your own, and would try to deflect the hit.

A power weapon defending a non-power weapon has the standard chance to shatter the attacking weapons if the parry roll has 2 or more Degrees of Success.

 

 

Btw, apologies for my heretic misuse of grammar: as you may have seen english is not my native language :P



#32 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,106 posts

Posted 01 June 2014 - 01:12 PM



Assmarines [lawl] are usually better at parrying than dodging

 

Sure, but if I know that contact with the enemy weapon has a high chance to just disintegrate stuff, I'd always opt for evading said contact altogether rather than trying to forcefully deflect it with something I might still need in the future.

Such as my own close combat weapon.  :lol:

 



By the way, I figure the attacking weapon would shatter IF the defending weapon was BLOCKING, which is a bad parry.

A good parry is done deflecting the attack, for blocking said attack would require lot more energy and wouldn't provide chances to counterattack like a parry would.

 

Hmm, I think you've actually just delivered a reason (or a plausible explanation, anyways) for why the RAW has power weapons sunder the opponent's weapon only when defending: The wielder is aware of the properties of his weapon, essentially forcing a high-energy impact of the attacker's weapon onto his powered blade and thus turning the attacker's strength against his own weapon, so to say - whereas the opponent with a non-powered weapon parries with the intent of minimising the contact, and thus the threat to his weapon.

 

Personally, I think your houserule is gimping an important thematic feature of the power sword, and introducing an unnecessary mathematical element when you could just as well lower the 75% chance to a lesser value (or at least remove this chance entirely and make it depend entirely on the DoS).

 

How about placing the onus on the other party, by making it depend on the DoS of the Attack roll - basically reflecting the skill of the weapon's wielder to adjust their attack and "pull their blow" when their lightning reflexes notice it will get intercepted?

 

 

 

Or, switch the entire thing around and have it depend on the power weapon being parried, not parrying with it - so that the character without a power weapon has to choose whether they want to dodge or parry. You could then introduce a Parry penalty for a special "deflecting" move that has a reduced or no chance for the weapon to shatter, if the wielder is willing to cope with a -10 or -20 modifier to the Parry test?


  • [S]ir[B]ardiel and Kshatriya like this
current 40k RPG character: Aura Vashaan, Astromancer Witch-Priestess
previous characters: Captain Elias (Celestial Lions Chapter -- debriefed), Comrade-Trooper Dasha Malenko (1207th Valhallan Ice Warriors -- KIA), Sister Elana (Order of the Sacred Rose -- assassinated), Leftenant Darion Baylesworth (Rogue Trader Artemisia -- retired), Taleera "Raven" Nephran (Hive Ganger & Inquisitorial Assassin -- mindwiped)

#33 [S]ir[B]ardiel

[S]ir[B]ardiel

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 08:11 AM

 



Assmarines [lawl] are usually better at parrying than dodging

 

Sure, but if I know that contact with the enemy weapon has a high chance to just disintegrate stuff, I'd always opt for evading said contact altogether rather than trying to forcefully deflect it with something I might still need in the future.

Such as my own close combat weapon.  :lol:

 



By the way, I figure the attacking weapon would shatter IF the defending weapon was BLOCKING, which is a bad parry.

A good parry is done deflecting the attack, for blocking said attack would require lot more energy and wouldn't provide chances to counterattack like a parry would.

 

Hmm, I think you've actually just delivered a reason (or a plausible explanation, anyways) for why the RAW has power weapons sunder the opponent's weapon only when defending: The wielder is aware of the properties of his weapon, essentially forcing a high-energy impact of the attacker's weapon onto his powered blade and thus turning the attacker's strength against his own weapon, so to say - whereas the opponent with a non-powered weapon parries with the intent of minimising the contact, and thus the threat to his weapon.

 

Personally, I think your houserule is gimping an important thematic feature of the power sword, and introducing an unnecessary mathematical element when you could just as well lower the 75% chance to a lesser value (or at least remove this chance entirely and make it depend entirely on the DoS).

 

How about placing the onus on the other party, by making it depend on the DoS of the Attack roll - basically reflecting the skill of the weapon's wielder to adjust their attack and "pull their blow" when their lightning reflexes notice it will get intercepted?

 

 

 

Or, switch the entire thing around and have it depend on the power weapon being parried, not parrying with it - so that the character without a power weapon has to choose whether they want to dodge or parry. You could then introduce a Parry penalty for a special "deflecting" move that has a reduced or no chance for the weapon to shatter, if the wielder is willing to cope with a -10 or -20 modifier to the Parry test?

 

Well what about 3 DoS and the attacking weapon shatters?
2 DoS if All Out Attack\Charge

4 DoS if Guarded Attack

 

Blocking is not always more easy than deflecting, so a general and realistic rule does not exist.



#34 Kshatriya

Kshatriya

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 11:40 AM

I probably would not implement another rule that required tracking of DoS for proccing an additional effect. Really to me if you're attacking a Necron wielding a power scythe with a chain sword, you're just asking to lose that sword, and that's on you. This happened in a game of mine while another player was taking a turn GMing. Was pretty hilarious.


  • [S]ir[B]ardiel, ak-73 and Lynata like this

#35 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:57 PM

I got one word for you: Feint.

Relatedly, has any of you considered removing the Attack subtype from Feint. I would like characters to be able to Feint and Standard Attack in the same action because otherwise a successful Feint could simply trigger a Disengage by the enemy everytime.

 

Alex


  • [S]ir[B]ardiel and Kshatriya like this

My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#36 Fgdsfg

Fgdsfg

    Lrod-Iniquitsor

  • Members
  • 2,010 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 01:36 PM

I got one word for you: Feint.
Relatedly, has any of you considered removing the Attack subtype from Feint. I would like characters to be able to Feint and Standard Attack in the same action because otherwise a successful Feint could simply trigger a Disengage by the enemy everytime.
 
Alex

There's also the option of making it impossible to Disengage from a Feint.

I was going to make a point that furthermore, I think that it is the job of the GM to not play shenanigans like that, and act as the opponents would've acted, and, having just been subject to a successful feint, they'd be no more inclined to do the Disengage action in a narrative sense than they were before.

Then I realized that this would likewise apply to players that have been Feinted, and I have no trust in players not doing shenanigans like doing Disengages after being Feinted.

I would simply disallow the Disengage Action. This has the added benefit of making Feint slightly more powerful.

...on the other hand, Feint is a Half-Action as it is, leaving a Half Action that can't really do anything at all. You can't move, you can't Disengage, and you can't attack. All you can realistically do is.. Delay, Ready or.. Aim, I guess. Aim would make sense.

But then you'd be better off doing an All-Out Attack. I can only really see Feint having a use for the first attack, after you've just spent 1 Half-Action getting into Melee, when you for some reason did not have the opportunity to Charge.

I'm not sure...
  • Lynata likes this

Real men earn their fun

Unified WH40kRP Ruleset Homebrew - Personal Notes
Talking Necrons. Dreadknights. Centurion Armour. Sororitas-murdering Grey Knights.
These things are dumb and do not exist. This is non-negotiable and undebatable.


#37 Kshatriya

Kshatriya

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 05:13 PM

All-Out Attack is awful because it prevents you from using defensive Reaction(s). That's a big metagame issue too: the GM knows a character using AOA can't avoid an incoming attack, and probably will attack that character. Wouldn't even take much IC justification to see "he put his all into that swing and has terrible footing to defend" or whatever.



#38 [S]ir[B]ardiel

[S]ir[B]ardiel

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 05:25 PM

How come you can't attack after a feint on the same turn? They are both attack subtype but they are not the same action



#39 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 03 June 2014 - 12:44 AM

RAI, but not RAW!, is evidently that you can't combine same subtypes in one turn. From the errata:

'Power Format (page 189): Add the following sentence to
the Action entry: “If the power targets an opponent or does damage
to an opponent, the power gains the Attack Subtype (see page 237),
and thus cannot be combined with other Attack Subtype actions (such
as Full-Auto Burst or Semi-Auto Burst, and so on).'

 

But my question was stupid because it has already been resolved in the errata:

'Feint (page 237 and 239): In Table 8-1: Combat Actions
and in its entry, Feint should not have the “Attack” subtype.

Dodge (page 237): In Table 8-1: Combat Actions, Dodge
should have Movement subtype.

Manoeuvre (page 237): In Table 8-1: Combat Actions and
in its entry on page 241, Manoeuvre should not have the
Attack subtype.'

 

 

Alex


Edited by ak-73, 03 June 2014 - 01:52 AM.

  • [S]ir[B]ardiel and Kshatriya like this

My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#40 Fgdsfg

Fgdsfg

    Lrod-Iniquitsor

  • Members
  • 2,010 posts

Posted 03 June 2014 - 03:58 AM

How come you can't attack after a feint on the same turn? They are both attack subtype but they are not the same action

It depends on the game. I think Dark Heresy specifically does not allow you to combine different subtypes (i.e. you cannot combine two Concentration actions or two Attack actions, for example). Some of the systems only specifically disallow multiple actions of the Attack subtype.

But ALL of the systems (afaik) disallow you from making multiple attacks of any kind, unless you have Two-Weapon Fighting, and for that, specific rules apply (and as always, specific rules overrule general rules).

After some thought, I'm very much inclined to agree with Alex's suggestion to remove the Attack subtype from Feint. I would, however, consider adding Concentration, just to make it clear that any other Concentration-based actions would at the very least take a penalty (depending on whether you allow actions of the same subtype at all - if you don't, then you'd also have to remove the Melee subtype from Feint, if it's got it in Deathwatch).

All-Out Attack is awful because it prevents you from using defensive Reaction(s). That's a big metagame issue too: the GM knows a character using AOA can't avoid an incoming attack, and probably will attack that character. Wouldn't even take much IC justification to see "he put his all into that swing and has terrible footing to defend" or whatever.

HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR DUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

I think I just had an aneurysm, when I realized that I should've read the description of All-Out Attack, rather than just the Combat Actions table. The three or four distinct groups I've been in, under three different GM:s as well as one group I'm running myself, has been doing it wrong. I'm amazed that no-one picked up on it, at least not to my knowledge. That's four different GM:s that should've known better.

We've been playing it as "All-Out Attack cannot be Dodged or Parried". When in reality, it means that the player loses his Dodge or Parry Reaction. Jesus F Christ this makes me feel like a moron, and this gives Feint and Standard Attack a distinct advantage over All-Out Attack, making for a better tactical dynamic.

So that's it. Feint loses the Attack Subtype. Done. Also, shoot me.
  • [S]ir[B]ardiel likes this

Real men earn their fun

Unified WH40kRP Ruleset Homebrew - Personal Notes
Talking Necrons. Dreadknights. Centurion Armour. Sororitas-murdering Grey Knights.
These things are dumb and do not exist. This is non-negotiable and undebatable.





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS