Jump to content



Photo

Only War: Hammer of the Emperor


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#21 H.B.M.C.

H.B.M.C.

    Freelance Writer/Play-Tester

  • Members
  • 1,503 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 09:45 AM

The fluff was done at the same time as the book. It just wasn't included in the beta.

We wrote Only War back in Oct/Nov 2011. Hammer of the Emperor came much later.

BYE


Matt Eustace. Contributing Author Credits: Church of the Damned, The Lathe Worlds, The Lathe Worlds - The Lost Dataslate, Only War Core Rulebook, Hammer of the Emperor, Shield of Humanity, Tome of Fate, Tome of Blood, Tome of Excess and Tome of Decay.

The views expressed in this post are my own. I do not speak for or on behalf of Fantasy Flight Games.


#22 Nomad_Druid

Nomad_Druid

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 08:06 AM

Core rulebook vehicles section says they don't cover the Valkyrie because its Navy.
You guys think we're gonna get our flyers?



#23 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 321 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 08:32 AM

Nomad_Druid said:

Core rulebook vehicles section says they don't cover the Valkyrie because its Navy.
You guys think we're gonna get our flyers?

I don't think so. At least not in the core rules or Hammer of the Emperor. Adding literally another dimension to the complexity of vehicles and vehicle combat would probably take up quite a bit of space in addition to all the tables and traits that flyers would need. Tanks and move on the same plane and roughly the same speed as Infantry, flyers however do not.
I'd love to see them but I don't think they'll be in the 'advanced players handbook'.



#24 Nomad_Druid

Nomad_Druid

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 09:09 AM

Thats true.
Regardless, I think I'll have Valkyie carryers here and there for my sessions. Since there aren't any rules ill come up with something simple based on the Codex. Max capacity of about 12 people. 



#25 AtoMaki

AtoMaki

    Member

  • Members
  • 802 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 09:49 AM

Musclewizard said:

I don't think so. At least not in the core rules or Hammer of the Emperor. Adding literally another dimension to the complexity of vehicles and vehicle combat would probably take up quite a bit of space in addition to all the tables and traits that flyers would need. Tanks and move on the same plane and roughly the same speed as Infantry, flyers however do not.
I'd love to see them but I don't think they'll be in the 'advanced players handbook'.

 

There are rules in Into the Storm for flyers and they barely occupy three pages. 



#26 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 321 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 10:01 AM

AtoMaki said:

There are rules in Into the Storm for flyers and they barely occupy three pages. 

Hm, you're right. Into the Storm just ignored the 3rd dimension.  There's a few things missing in the Into The Storm rules that are present in OW (critical hit tables for different facings) and some moreadvanced repairing but that's about it.

 



#27 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,146 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 10:13 AM

Even if the Valkyrie is Imperial Navy, they are involved in IG actions quite frequently. Add in that hostile flyers are in use by Orks and (especially) Eldar of all varieties, and they would do well to put out the flyer expansion sooner rather than later.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#28 AtoMaki

AtoMaki

    Member

  • Members
  • 802 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 10:19 AM

Also, some flyer love would give the Operate (Aeronautica) Skill some credit too. Because nobody likes useless skills (I'm looking at you, Operate (Voidships)). 



#29 Plushy

Plushy

    Member

  • Members
  • 811 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 05:47 PM

Would love to see a Navy book further down the line. The Imperial fliers are some of my favorite vehicles in 40k, and the potential for fun with a party of pilots would be amazing.

I hope we get the Valkyrie further down the line, although in a game they would likely be plot transport of a save-the-day gunship. If the latter, they're… two Heavy Bolters, an Autocannon, and some missiles, right?

Really hope the Tauros is in Hammer of the Emperor. It just isn't right to have Elysians without them.

 

Not terribly related, but are there Penitent Engine stats anywhere?


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!


#30 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,146 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 02:19 AM

Plushy said:

Would love to see a Navy book further down the line. The Imperial fliers are some of my favorite vehicles in 40k, and the potential for fun with a party of pilots would be amazing.

I hope we get the Valkyrie further down the line, although in a game they would likely be plot transport of a save-the-day gunship. If the latter, they're… two Heavy Bolters, an Autocannon, and some missiles, right?

Really hope the Tauros is in Hammer of the Emperor. It just isn't right to have Elysians without them.

 

Not terribly related, but are there Penitent Engine stats anywhere?

I do hope we see a book covering Naval assets (both vehicles and character options) that operate with the IG. A modified Operator that can be used either to fly aeronautica or to call in air strikes or fire support from orbital assets would be awesome.

Speaking of that, did I miss rules in the main book for calling in regular tube or rocket artillery?


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#31 AtoMaki

AtoMaki

    Member

  • Members
  • 802 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 03:42 AM

HappyDaze said:

Speaking of that, did I miss rules in the main book for calling in regular tube or rocket artillery?

Check the Indirect weapon quality. It says that if an artillery weapon has spotters, then its crew may fire it with better accuracy. 



#32 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,146 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 04:27 AM

AtoMaki said:

HappyDaze said:

 

Speaking of that, did I miss rules in the main book for calling in regular tube or rocket artillery?

 

 

Check the Indirect weapon quality. It says that if an artillery weapon has spotters, then its crew may fire it with better accuracy. 

Do the spotters need any special Skills/Talents, or is it (incorrectly) assumed that anyone can spot and call in fire?


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#33 AtoMaki

AtoMaki

    Member

  • Members
  • 802 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 05:22 AM

HappyDaze said:

Do the spotters need any special Skills/Talents, or is it (incorrectly) assumed that anyone can spot and call in fire?

 

The spotter needs Tech-Use to operate the Vox-Caster and probably Awareness/Scrutiny to give exact coordinates but the latter is only handwaved in the description. 



#34 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 936 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 01:44 PM


AtoMaki said:


HappyDaze said:



 


Do the spotters need any special Skills/Talents, or is it (incorrectly) assumed that anyone can spot and call in fire?


 


 


 


The spotter needs Tech-Use to operate the Vox-Caster and probably Awareness/Scrutiny to give exact coordinates but the latter is only handwaved in the description. 



Taking a page out of DW. The spotter must succeed on a challenging tech use test to operate the Vox and then make a ballistic skill test (Modified by +10 [I think] if the spotter has a rangefinding device such as an auspex). If successful, The strike lands on target. If not it scatters as specified in the weapon description (Which for orbital strikes is alot!).



#35 Luis Mittelsmann

Luis Mittelsmann

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:13 AM

My first reaction was: holy crap my gaming group will totally become the feral space mongols that burns and loot their way through my campaigns…

The second one was; what the heck does the 1st and Only have to do with Calixian Sector?



#36 Psion

Psion

    Member

  • Members
  • 417 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 04:24 PM

Luis Mittelsmann said:

The second one was; what the heck does the 1st and Only have to do with Calixian Sector?

The same thing that the Tallarns, Catachans, and a couple other regiments have to do with the Calixian sector, they're popular and the fans demand them.



#37 AtoMaki

AtoMaki

    Member

  • Members
  • 802 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 10:57 PM

Psion said:

Luis Mittelsmann said:

The second one was; what the heck does the 1st and Only have to do with Calixian Sector?

 

The same thing that the Tallarns, Catachans, and a couple other regiments have to do with the Calixian sector, they're popular and the fans demand them.

 

Okay, but there are five bazillion regiments of Tallarns/Catachans/DKoK out there. One could end up in the Calixian sector. But there is only one Tanith regiment what is quite busy with this Sabbath crusade thing on the opposite side of the galaxy. Though, I must admit, in the Warhammer 40k universe this isn't a huge problem - Warp travel could have some funny side effects…



#38 DrNo172000

DrNo172000

    Member

  • Members
  • 28 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 12:53 AM

AtoMaki said:

 

Okay, but there are five bazillion regiments of Tallarns/Catachans/DKoK out there. One could end up in the Calixian sector. But there is only one Tanith regiment what is quite busy with this Sabbath crusade thing on the opposite side of the galaxy. Though, I must admit, in the Warhammer 40k universe this isn't a huge problem - Warp travel could have some funny side effects…

 

 

Whenever faced between the rule of coolism and realism, coolism always applies in 40k.  That and maybe GW retconned the Sabbath crusade like they do everything else.

 

Edit: Only War could also be set in a different chunk of the timeline.



#39 AtoMaki

AtoMaki

    Member

  • Members
  • 802 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 01:57 AM

DrNo172000 said:

Whenever faced between the rule of coolism and realism, coolism always applies in 40k.  That and maybe GW retconned the Sabbath crusade like they do everything else.

The Sabbath crusade is the product of Den Abnett and not GW's. So I don't think that they could retcon it that easily (and just because an RPG rulebook expansion). 

 

DrNo172000 said:

Edit: Only War could also be set in a different chunk of the timeline.

Won't work. The Tanith First and Only is in the Sabbath crusade from the beginning to the end. It is their big Destiny Warzone, so to say. The only way I can see their appearance is that they pull out an Al'rahem (Tallarn officer who was technically "cloned" by the warp).



#40 LuciusT

LuciusT

    Member

  • Members
  • 919 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 03:54 AM

Luis Mittelsmann said:

The second one was; what the heck does the 1st and Only have to do with Calixian Sector?

Nothing, but we don't all play in the Calixis Sector. Just because it's the default setting for the game doesn't mean it's the only setting available.  






© 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