Jump to content



Photo

Splinter Rifle


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 652 posts

Posted 04 July 2012 - 05:01 AM

In Black Crusade it has Toxic (4).

In Only War it apparently lowers that to 2.

Which is correct? If they are meant to be different, what guide will there be for converting the additional DE stuff from OW into BC?



#2 Reverend mort

Reverend mort

    Member

  • Members
  • 398 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 03:58 AM

Both. Different games, different rules.

As for converting, that's gonna be entirely at your own discretion.



#3 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 652 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 07:18 AM

This really is my biggest problem with FFG. I get that the pc's in each game are of different power levels, but this is not the way to deal with it in my opinion. It means that, if i want to use stuff from other games (such as the extended DE bestiary in OW), I have to take into account those power levels and guestimate a fix.



#4 PnPgamer

PnPgamer

    Member

  • Members
  • 237 posts

Posted 06 July 2012 - 07:17 AM

Even though they dare claim that they are perfectly mergeable. I have decided that I transfer only the monsters AND EVEN THEN WITH HIGH CAUTION!

although I haven't yet GM'd my first FFG game. 



#5 Illithid00

Illithid00

    Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 06 July 2012 - 11:20 AM

 Split the difference and call it Toxic (3). Problem solved.



#6 Cifer

Cifer

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,790 posts

Posted 06 July 2012 - 12:52 PM

Do whatever feels appropriate. If you like your raiders extra-poisonous, take the Toxic (4). If you'd like to swarm your group with a couple more of them without them keeling over from the first two darts, take Toxic (2). Then pray that the Rules Police doesn't notice.

Problem solved?



#7 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 652 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 03:06 AM

Personally Toxic (4) is too high given that other than this a Kabalite warrior is by and large on a par with a starting heretic. I deliberately didn't have them use their rifles for that reason when I ran them. They nearly got to fire them, but their crappy luck and the pc's chainsword did for them.

But again the answer to these problems isn't houserules.

Yes I get that people like to house rule games. I don't, unless it is absolutely essential. I don't buy games so I can change the rules. If I wanted to do that, I would just write my own game in the first place! YMMV, but the solution to a rules issue shouldn't be 'ignore it', which really is what you are saying. What should happen is that the developers should adress or explain the issue. Sadly FFG don't.



#8 Cifer

Cifer

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,790 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 10:07 AM

What should happen is that the developers should adress or explain the issue. Sadly FFG don't.

So I take it you already pushed that "Rules Questions" button at the very bottom of the site two or three weeks ago, actually asked them about the issue and didn't receive a response?



#9 DJSunhammer

DJSunhammer

    Member

  • Members
  • 602 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 11:58 AM

signoftheserpent said:

Personally Toxic (4) is too high given that other than this a Kabalite warrior is by and large on a par with a starting heretic. I deliberately didn't have them use their rifles for that reason when I ran them. They nearly got to fire them, but their crappy luck and the pc's chainsword did for them.

But again the answer to these problems isn't houserules.

Yes I get that people like to house rule games. I don't, unless it is absolutely essential. I don't buy games so I can change the rules. If I wanted to do that, I would just write my own game in the first place! YMMV, but the solution to a rules issue shouldn't be 'ignore it', which really is what you are saying. What should happen is that the developers should adress or explain the issue. Sadly FFG don't.

FFG may have thought the Splinter in BC was too strong and reduced its strength for OW. I have no idea why they wouldn't just put that in the errata though.



#10 Librarian

Librarian

    Member

  • Members
  • 66 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 05:50 PM

I would go with poison 2 myself the 4 is so high it makes it pointless to even bother making the check for most creatures. and really they are splinter rifles a very common weapon in the dark eldar army if they are all poison 4 then space marines better go back to traveling around in 100,000 man legions in case so dark eldar show up.



#11 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 652 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 12:40 AM

DJSunhammer said:

signoftheserpent said:

 

Personally Toxic (4) is too high given that other than this a Kabalite warrior is by and large on a par with a starting heretic. I deliberately didn't have them use their rifles for that reason when I ran them. They nearly got to fire them, but their crappy luck and the pc's chainsword did for them.

But again the answer to these problems isn't houserules.

Yes I get that people like to house rule games. I don't, unless it is absolutely essential. I don't buy games so I can change the rules. If I wanted to do that, I would just write my own game in the first place! YMMV, but the solution to a rules issue shouldn't be 'ignore it', which really is what you are saying. What should happen is that the developers should adress or explain the issue. Sadly FFG don't.

 

 

FFG may have thought the Splinter in BC was too strong and reduced its strength for OW. I have no idea why they wouldn't just put that in the errata though.

There's a few things not in the errata. The book copies and pastes entries from older games and noone proofread to see if the correct skills were used (such as chaging pilot to operate).

I assumed the change from 4 to 2 was for precisely this reason. Toxic 4 is ridiculous.



#12 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 652 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 12:42 AM

Cifer said:

What should happen is that the developers should adress or explain the issue. Sadly FFG don't.

So I take it you already pushed that "Rules Questions" button at the very bottom of the site two or three weeks ago, actually asked them about the issue and didn't receive a response?

I've asked them rules questions before. They don't give a response. Their customer service is pretty poor IMO. So no, I haven't asked them this time because I frankly can't be bothered to waste my time.

This is a development team that took 6 months to produce an errata that still doesn't fix everything. That doesn't suggest to me they care or are on the ball. I wish that were different, but…



#13 Illithid00

Illithid00

    Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 01:03 PM

signoftheserpent said:

Cifer said:

 

What should happen is that the developers should adress or explain the issue. Sadly FFG don't.

So I take it you already pushed that "Rules Questions" button at the very bottom of the site two or three weeks ago, actually asked them about the issue and didn't receive a response?

 

I've asked them rules questions before. They don't give a response. Their customer service is pretty poor IMO. So no, I haven't asked them this time because I frankly can't be bothered to waste my time.

 

This is a development team that took 6 months to produce an errata that still doesn't fix everything. That doesn't suggest to me they care or are on the ball. I wish that were different, but…

 

Is it really a waste of time to copy and paste what you wrote in the opening post of the thread and send it to FFG? By not sending it in, you're pretty much guaranteed not to get an official response.



#14 Cifer

Cifer

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,790 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 10:48 PM

But there's the off-chance that FFG sends an answer, perhaps even an intelligent one - and if that was the case, one couldn't in good conscience continue moping. And let's be honest: Wailing about the pitiful customer service of FFG (which one never asked about this topic) is much better than having an answer to a mostly irrelevant question.



#15 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 652 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 11:24 PM

Isn't it possible to both ask questions here and on their not particularly good customer service form? I've sent off the question.

Wouldn't they be better off just reading the forums they created specifically for the purpose of asking rules questions? After all if they aren't going to bother with questions asked there, what's the point of that forum? Who else will be able to provide an answer; us players can only guess.

~sigh~ it's just so frustrating. It could all be so awesome, but for a lack of attention to detail.

 



#16 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 652 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 11:57 PM

Cifer said:

But there's the off-chance that FFG sends an answer, perhaps even an intelligent one - and if that was the case, one couldn't in good conscience continue moping. And let's be honest: Wailing about the pitiful customer service of FFG (which one never asked about this topic) is much better than having an answer to a mostly irrelevant question.

Is that language you're using helpful do you think, or deliberately confrontational?

Telling people they are just 'moping' or 'wailing' is ridiculous.



#17 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,475 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 01:00 AM

Different Kabals can have different poison masters, and thus load their guns with poison of different quality. Use whatever value fits the most at the moment.

There. Problem solved, verisimilitude is preserved, and it took me two minutes to come up with that answer.

40k has some inconsistent rulings between the lines that never get updated. This one is not a problem at all unless you're hell-bent on making it a problem. Which isn't really helpful for anyone.


There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#18 Cifer

Cifer

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,790 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 06:43 AM

@signoftheserpent

Wouldn't they be better off just reading the forums they created specifically for the purpose of asking rules questions? After all if they aren't going to bother with questions asked there, what's the point of that forum? Who else will be able to provide an answer; us players can only guess.

That would depend on the question. There are quite a few that can be answered by "Look at page 234, there's a box that covers that case". Many other questions can be adequately answered by "I have no idea what FFG meant when they wrote that, but here's what I think you could do in that situation - maybe it helps your group."

As for having someone from FFG read the forums… sure. Are you going to pay him for the time he scans the forums, reads the questions, tries to remember who invented that rule, asks that person what he meant, makes sure there's no conflict between his answer and other published stuff and finally types it? Or would you be upset at yet another price raise?

 

Is that language you're using helpful do you think, or deliberately confrontational?

There are many posters on this forum that I respect and some that I admire. Since I have read your posts in the past (cf. the OW beta forum), you fall in neither category. I do not believe you are looking for a solution to a problem you have, because there were multiple solutions provided in this very thread. You want to criticize. You want to find a problem and express your anger about it. I really have no idea to what end you want to do that, but frankly, since you're not looking for help, I don't see a need to be helpful.



#19 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 652 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 10:09 AM

Cifer said:

As for having someone from FFG read the forums… sure. Are you going to pay him for the time he scans the forums, reads the questions, tries to remember who invented that rule, asks that person what he meant, makes sure there's no conflict between his answer and other published stuff and finally types it? Or would you be upset at yet another price raise?

 

I'm not going to pay them, but then I dont pay the person that answers the email questions either which is basically the exact same thing.



#20 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,475 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 11:11 AM

signoftheserpent said:

Cifer said:

As for having someone from FFG read the forums… sure. Are you going to pay him for the time he scans the forums, reads the questions, tries to remember who invented that rule, asks that person what he meant, makes sure there's no conflict between his answer and other published stuff and finally types it? Or would you be upset at yet another price raise?

 

 

 

I'm not going to pay them, but then I dont pay the person that answers the email questions either which is basically the exact same thing.

Not quite. There is a significant number of rules questions that we, the community, can answer for ourselves (like all the ones where pointing out the page reference suffices, or where a consensus on the ruling is quickly reached, meaning there's no need for an officially sanctioned ruling), and then for those questions we can't answer this way, there is the official channel. Thus, the community acts as a natural filter.

If an FFG employee was obliged to answer any and all questions posted in the Rules Questions section of the board, the filter would be gone, and the development team would waste enormous amounts of time citing page numbers for people who can't find a rule in a book right in front of them, and clarifying things a great number of unaffiliated posters could answer to the complete satisfaction of the person asking.

You know, the time they could be spending answering those questions that we can't, ones that point out deeper, systemic flaws in the rules that may require errata.

For the record, being the guy who owns and plays all 40k games, I understand the problems that arise from FFG's development policy regarding the "older" games. But I also understand the benefits of this model. For example, if 40k was a unified rulebook with different "splatbooks" for various campaign models (i.e. what is now handled by different core games), I strongly doubt we'd get all the neat core rules updates that BC brought about, because that'd require publishing a new edition of the corebook, and people hate that.

Anyway, it seems that you really hate the 40k game as envisioned by FFG. Have you considered running 40k on a different system? I've heard Savage Worlds works quite admirably for that.


There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.





© 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