Jump to content



Photo

Week Seven Update


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#21 Braddoc

Braddoc

    Member

  • Members
  • 716 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 03:06 AM

Yes, have the enemy's vehicle reflect the size change as well; I still don't think Sentinel ought to be enourmous.

As for ogryn having Bs scrap this, we already got enough Bs related specialists now.



#22 Thaddux

Thaddux

    Member

  • Members
  • 85 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 09:23 AM

Ogryns can shoot, I'm cool with this, but they're not good at it.  BS aptitude makes very little sense to me.



#23 KommissarK

KommissarK

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,499 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 09:47 AM

Thaddux said:

Ogryns can shoot, I'm cool with this, but they're not good at it.  BS aptitude makes very little sense to me.

In TT they're no worse than any other IG model (BS 3). Ogryns are not Orks, and the only real concern with their ability to shoot is their tendency to be just as likely to bash an enemies face with their weapon.

Having one of the two aptitudes is pretty much equal to having BS 3, having neither is like BS 2. Talent wise, this does cheapen a few "odd" talents for an Ogryn, but if you consider the high chance they won't meet the agility pre-req, some of them make sense. Storm of Iron indeed does make sense for them. Arms Master is a trash talent anyway (since you can just buy the training. Also, for Ogryns, it must have Ogryn proof. They pretty much start with all the trainings they will ever need)..

TWW is "ogryn-like", but there aren't any instances of ogryn-proof pistols (Only remote option would be a ripper gun with Extra Grip. Some mighty fine cheese you got there).

Hip Shooting is very ogryn-like, but unlikely they would hit the 40 agility.

Ambidextrous is a bit odd. The Agi pre-req could possibly be hard for them, also, its very hard to justify (only useful for dual wielding melee weapons. In other words Truncheons, as all the others are two-handed).

Eye of Vengence is a bit of an odd one for them, but it seems more luck oriented than anything. I could see an Ogryn getting that one lucky shot.

Target Selection in wording might seem strange, but given how often an Ogryn is in melee, it makes sense they eventually become quite good at not hitting their buddies.

Lasgun Battage/Gunslinger/Sidearm are pointless for an Ogryn (no Ogryn-proof pistols or lasguns).

Crack Shot/Mighty Shot can be described in many ways, and more ways to deal more damage is certainly ogryn-like.

Sharpshooter, Marksman, Independent Targeting, and Deadeye shot are not very Ogryn-like, sure, but tend to be less meaningful with the Ogryn-Proof restriction.

Clearly, to maintain an Ogryn's ability to shoot, Ballistic Skill is a more appropriate aptitude over Finesse.



#24 Emperor Castaigne

Emperor Castaigne

    Member

  • Members
  • 58 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 10:27 AM

WittyDroog said:

 

I don't share any if the concerns that you have. I've had a blast making up interesting Regiments with the rules provided and I'm perfectly fine with the famous ones having something to distinguish them from others, and its usually a single rule so big freaking deal. If you want to remake Cadia but nit have them be Cadians then just call them whatever you like. If you want the special rule associated with a particular regiment that you HAVE TO HAVE then have the GM come up with the appropriate cost. I mean honestly you could do whatever you want since this is just an RPG, not a competitive game, the rules provided act as a guideline but if you got an idea then no one will stop you from using it.

 

Like HTMC said, its nit like Deathwatch's chapters could be recreated with the First Founding rules with perfect accuracy and you know what? The game was just fine regardless, and it'll be fine here too.

 

 

You couldn't have missed my point harder if you had tried.

The fact that some of the pre-generated can't be created using the existing regiment creation rules is a tiny, insignificant problem.

The fact that FFG has completely ignored every single piece of feedback regarding the regiment creation rules and have given no indication of why? A PROBLEM BIG ENOUGH TO DRIVE A PLATOON OF BANEBLADES THROUGH.



#25 HTMC

HTMC

    Member

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 11:19 AM

Emperor Castaigne said:

 

You couldn't have missed my point harder if you had tried.

The fact that some of the pre-generated can't be created using the existing regiment creation rules is a tiny, insignificant problem.

The fact that FFG has completely ignored every single piece of feedback regarding the regiment creation rules and have given no indication of why? A PROBLEM BIG ENOUGH TO DRIVE A PLATOON OF BANEBLADES THROUGH.

Maybe I just completely missed something, but… what problems? The biggest concern I remember reading was having 1 leftover point, which was addressed. I know there's some controversy about some people thinking Aptitude-granting bonuses are inherently better than other options, but I haven't seen anyone complaining about anything regarding commander type, homeworld (besides wanting mixed regiments), etc. I certainly haven't seen any issues brought up that are the magnitude you are describing: most people seem very happy with the regiment creation system. Perhaps I'm just stupidly missing something, though, so please expand on what you're talking about.



#26 Thaddux

Thaddux

    Member

  • Members
  • 85 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 11:31 AM

Maybe there should be a way of making weapons Ogryn-Proof. :P



#27 JuankiMan

JuankiMan

    Member

  • Members
  • 256 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 11:54 AM

Thaddux said:

Maybe there should be a way of making weapons Ogryn-Proof. :P

That's a very interesting idea, but as a GM I'd be very careful what I'm putting in an Ogryn's hands, and so would the Munitorum Quartermaster.



#28 BaronIveagh

BaronIveagh

    Member

  • Members
  • 895 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 12:02 PM

 

 

 

HTMC said:

 

 

Maybe I just completely missed something, but… what problems? The biggest concern I remember reading was having 1 leftover point, which was addressed. I know there's some controversy about some people thinking Aptitude-granting bonuses are inherently better than other options, but I haven't seen anyone complaining about anything regarding commander type, homeworld (besides wanting mixed regiments), etc. I certainly haven't seen any issues brought up that are the magnitude you are describing: most people seem very happy with the regiment creation system. Perhaps I'm just stupidly missing something, though, so please expand on what you're talking about.

 

 

 

Well, for example, we have no rules for Rough Riders, but we have Hunting Lance weapons stats.  Drop Troops are missing valks, which are as basic a peice of kit for them as the Chimera is for Mech Infantry.  Armored Company doesn't make much sense (To me, anyway) unless you throw out the Comrades rules and have a party of pretty much nothing but Operators manning a single tank. (Not that this is bad, mind you, it can be fun, but seems to make little sense in the context of the regiment creation system.)

 

In the case of Armor, as an example, most of the Doctrines make zero sense, or have little use.  Price requirements mean that the few that do make the least bit sense are too expensive to take.

 

So, you either have to take less then three doctrines, or use one as a dump stat.



#29 Emperor Castaigne

Emperor Castaigne

    Member

  • Members
  • 58 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 12:53 PM

HTMC said:

 

Maybe I just completely missed something, but… what problems? The biggest concern I remember reading was having 1 leftover point, which was addressed. I know there's some controversy about some people thinking Aptitude-granting bonuses are inherently better than other options, but I haven't seen anyone complaining about anything regarding commander type, homeworld (besides wanting mixed regiments), etc. I certainly haven't seen any issues brought up that are the magnitude you are describing: most people seem very happy with the regiment creation system. Perhaps I'm just stupidly missing something, though, so please expand on what you're talking about.

I'm talking about the thread I made pointing out flaws in the Regiment Creation chapter:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=306&efcid=3&efidt=690826

and this other thread discussing Doctrines:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=306&efcid=3&efidt=678779

and this other thread suggesting being able to include penalties in order to receive more points to use elsewhere:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=306&efcid=3&efidt=678141

There are probably other discussions as well, but those are the ones I tracked down just now.

Also, I found where I got the impression that the Regiment Creation rules weren't quite finished. N0-1_H3r3 posts in these two threads:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=306&efcid=3&efidt=673852

N0-1_H3r3 said:

I'm not sure why this happened - at the time of writing, Aptitudes worked differently, so the original version of the Fieldcraft doctrine was quite different (the same can be said for many of the Doctrines in the book), so the change was made entirely after I handed in my manuscript (and thus I have no justification for it). I fully support changing the benefit of the Fieldcraft Doctrine to granting the Fieldcraft Aptitude.

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=306&efcid=3&efidt=671149

 

N0-1_H3r3 said:

 

This is very much the case - the Imperium is vast, and you can't expect to see everything covered. The choice of homeworlds/origins in Only War is meant to be a fairly broad representative sample (and one that didn't fall afoul of GW's approvals process).

Modifying them to suit is entirely possible, and doesn't take much for those so inclined - both the Tallarn and Krieg regiments have a different trait to the Death World and Penitent origins that they're based on.

Considering how much influence the choice of regiment is going to have on the game you play, it seems worrying how one of the only two pieces of official-ish feedback I've been able to find consists of "It worked differently when I wrote that".

There's been no word on what the rest of the squad (and the Comrades) are supposed to be doing in Reconnaisance or Hunter-Killer regiments where the squad gets one Sentinel Walker to share. Or why Hardened Fighters is superior to Warrior Weapons despite being the cheaper doctrine. Or whether regiments with Demolitions as a doctrine should have Tech-use as a starting skill (or be able to use Tech-Use as a Trained Skill when Crafting or dealing with Explosives, as another suggestion was). Or if you can change what counts as your Main Weapon for the two extra clips provided by the Well Provisioned doctrine (such as a Commissar's Bolt Pistol or a Heavy Gunner's specialist weapon).



#30 Kiton

Kiton

    Member

  • Members
  • 370 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 04:36 PM

I still maintain that the Lasgun Overload setting is either too expensive for the improvement, or too weak for its cost. Its alright as it is on laspistols churned out from mass-produced laspistol mass-production factories, but when you start hitting rare, high quality las technology, quad ammo + unreliable is just too much for what SP weapons could just pick up as special ammo.

Likewise, Good and Best quality Ranged Weapons could use a little something.

I am very happy to see the Hunting Lance made useful though. Combined with good strength and charge talents [I could easily see being mounted give bonuses to this as well] someone on a bike or creature could really put a hole in things. Solid alternative in packs to power weapons too if you can't get your hands on them.

Can punch through rear Chimera armour, with some lucky damage rolls right now. About damn time.



#31 Amaimon

Amaimon

    Member

  • Members
  • 275 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:56 AM

Please change the Primitive quality, to better reflect its usefullness on primitive armour. Thank you. (As I said many times before, you know how to change the wording).



#32 Kiton

Kiton

    Member

  • Members
  • 370 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 02:24 PM

I'll toss this around here too, though it was originally asked in Black Crusade: Just how definitive is the destruction of a Hunting Lance?

Does someone with a Slayer Limb grow or regenerate it, or do they get one smack with it and are permanently left with a broken club-arm?

What about a Daemon-Weapon lance? Is that a stick wrought for the purpose of causing Perils of the Warp? Or does it slowly grow back throughout the fight, ready for the next?

I imagine those two cases would have the same answer, though, given the similar nature in both cases. One could also wonder if its possible for a good or best quality, or integral weapon version, to instead be reloadable [chances are the warheads are the same availability as the lances themselves, given they're the important part], using little shaped charges at the top?

 

 

For the squads with Sentinels, it might be most appropriate to give all of them a sentinel, but at the cost of, say, such a unit getting only half the equipment points to work with. Those choices are obviously meant for less common, all-operators kinds of parties; and this much could be warned about: You don't ACTUALLY have a regiment entirely made of sentinels; selecting this just means that the party IS one of the few [or the only] sentinel squadrons of the regiment.



#33 BaronIveagh

BaronIveagh

    Member

  • Members
  • 895 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 02:51 PM

Kiton said:

I'll toss this around here too, though it was originally asked in Black Crusade: Just how definitive is the destruction of a Hunting Lance?

 

Pretty definitive as the head of it is basically an explosive charge.  The Munitions Handbook actually lists hunting lances, demo charges, and grenades as the only weapons that gaurdmen are not punished for destroying, as, by thier very nature, they're one use.



#34 MILLANDSON

MILLANDSON

    Playtester

  • Members
  • 3,356 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 03:59 PM

Plushy said:

Cifer said:

 

Yup, definitely a great update. I'd still like to see Medicae errataed, as (as I've noted before) right now, it may be better to let a critically injured soldier heal on his own or via repeated First Aid rather than risk a failed Extended Care check which has a high chance of killing him.

Regarding formatting, it might be an idea to make "variable settings" a weapon trait rather than writing it into the lasgun and referring to the weapon rather than a trait for all the other lasweapons.

So… what else? Please indicate whether the Favored Weapons one can obtain via the box on errata page 3 are actually weapons put into the standard kit or just more weapons for whom the Favoured Weapons rules count.

 

 

 

I believe that it adds them to the standard kit.

According to the writer that originally suggested the Favoured Weapons bit, it adds one of those weapons to the squad, not to the standard equipment for everyone. I don't know if that was changed, since we've seen no update on it since then, but that was the original intention.


~Yea, Tho I Walk Through The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death, I Shall Fear No Evil~

 

Posts/views/opinions are in no way representative of FFG, and are entirely my own.


#35 Plushy

Plushy

    Member

  • Members
  • 811 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 04:30 PM

 Tech-Priests have far too much good stuff at character creation. There's no specified limit on their cybernetics or ballistic mechandendrite, they have a lot of aptitudes and a comrade… I like the bloody cogboys and think he needs a nerf.


My apologies to anyone I offend; FFG staff, playtesters, and forum users alike. 

 

Please check out my Dark Heresy to Only War conversion! You can find it on the main Only War forum. I'm always looking for more people to playtest it!


#36 MILLANDSON

MILLANDSON

    Playtester

  • Members
  • 3,356 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:51 PM

Plushy said:

 Tech-Priests have far too much good stuff at character creation. There's no specified limit on their cybernetics or ballistic mechandendrite, they have a lot of aptitudes and a comrade… I like the bloody cogboys and think he needs a nerf.

Aye, I think a rarity limit needs to be put in place for the extra bionics/cybernetics, and a limit on what type of ballistic mechadendrite should be added.


~Yea, Tho I Walk Through The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death, I Shall Fear No Evil~

 

Posts/views/opinions are in no way representative of FFG, and are entirely my own.


#37 Manyfist

Manyfist

    Member

  • Members
  • 100 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 05:35 AM

 I think maybe limiting it to only plasma pistol & hot-shot pistol for starters. As for starting bionics, limit it to very rare or better. Also I believe the number of mechandrites are limited to your toughness bonus. 



#38 KommissarK

KommissarK

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,499 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 05:49 AM

By strict RAW, the ballistic mechadendrite doesn't come with a weapon attached to it actually…

Yes, the Techpriest has the option of taking one, but then in its wording: "This two metre limb may be armed with any Pistol-class weapon with the Compact Upgrade." I view that the Compact pistol should need to be provided by the PC for attachment, although it might be best to state it comes with a Compact Laspistol by default (this eliminates the question, and make the item "useful" when first acquired).

I sincerely doubt the acquisition of a Very Rare item allows for the attachment of an Extremely Rare pistol (e.g. Inferno Pistol).



#39 Manyfist

Manyfist

    Member

  • Members
  • 100 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 07:48 AM

KommissarK said:

By strict RAW, the ballistic mechadendrite doesn't come with a weapon attached to it actually…

Yes, the Techpriest has the option of taking one, but then in its wording: "This two metre limb may be armed with any Pistol-class weapon with the Compact Upgrade." I view that the Compact pistol should need to be provided by the PC for attachment, although it might be best to state it comes with a Compact Laspistol by default (this eliminates the question, and make the item "useful" when first acquired).

I sincerely doubt the acquisition of a Very Rare item allows for the attachment of an Extremely Rare pistol (e.g. Inferno Pistol).

Inferno Pistol is now Near-Unique, Meltagun is very rare, and Multi-Melta is extremely-rare.



#40 KommissarK

KommissarK

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,499 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 08:03 AM

Manyfist said:

 

Inferno Pistol is now Near-Unique, Meltagun is very rare, and Multi-Melta is extremely-rare.

You're only further proving my point then (and I was aware, was just too lazy to pull up the errata notes to double check what I had, didn't think it mattered that much).






© 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