Jump to content



Photo

Week Five Update


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 ffgMark

ffgMark

    Member

  • Members
  • 35 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 07:09 AM

Hello all,

The developers have posted their weekly update! Please use this thread if you wish to discuss its contents.

Thank you for your continued support.



#2 Plushy

Plushy

    Member

  • Members
  • 810 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 07:43 AM

 Well, this had exactly nothing people have been talking about.

 

Grenades still need Pen, the Storm Trooper is still built for melee combat due to his aptitudes and he needs his armor back, and we've been clamoring for the variable lasgun settings.


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!


#3 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 07:47 AM

While I do like all the changes from Week 5 I find it sad that there's still nothing on variable lasgun settings, vehicles and comrades.

Adding the variable setting from BC to Only War should be pretty simply and it baffles me that it does not appear in the updates.

It's even more confusing to see that there's still nothing done about the Imperial Vehicles. They are simply broken and nigh indestructible the way they are right now (compared to even the strongest AT-Weapons). This is not just about their toughness but also about vehicle size which seems to be wrong. There's also the fact that most vehicles have a variety of positions that dont seem to have any purpose. For example the loader is mostly useless in Vehicles that have a dedicated Gunner for the Hull Weapon (like the Baneblade), this is particularely annoying since the loader doesn't even have anything to do since the Baneblades Battle Cannon has a clip of 12 and the Demolisher Cannon has a clip of 2. So both those loaders are only active for 3 respectively 1 round every 12 / 2 rounds. Similarly the Commander doesn't really have a purpose rule wise. He does sit in the Turret but the Turrets Battle Cannon is operated by the Gunner and the Turrets Hull Weapon is operated by the Loader/Gunner (for the Leman Russ and some other vehicles).  I'm assuming the Commander actually does something like in a real tank but at least the Commander should be given the option to use the Pintle mounted weapon by replacing Commander (Turret) with Commander (Turret / Pintle; if taken) the same way it is handled with the sponsons.

The Comrade system that the news post mentions works fine in my opinion but I'd like to see some more variety as to what Comrades can and can't do in the form of some more Orders for them outside of Comrade Advances (or Comrade Advances that aren't bound to a specific speciality though I doubt we'll see that in the OW core rulebook). The areas where they fall short is options. There's only two options they have in combat by default and that's either to stay in cover or to do what you are doing (either shooting or melee). Outside of combat there's no (mechanical) options for them but that's fine I think since out of combat situations should be handled mostly via roleplay and not so much rollplay.



#4 LuciusT

LuciusT

    Member

  • Members
  • 889 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 07:47 AM

Plushy said:

Grenades still need Pen, the Storm Trooper is still built for melee combat due to his aptitudes and he needs his armor back, and we've been clamoring for the variable lasgun settings.

I think you missed the intro text  on the website where they say they're working on guardsmen starting gear (which I think covers lasguns and grenades) and vehicle weapons but haven't finished yet.

I agree about Stormtroopers.

I am very disappointed not to see some ultility psychic powers and more changes to the psychic rules.



#5 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 07:51 AM

Plushy said:

 

Grenades still need Pen

 

 

Are you talking about Frag Granades? Why would they need a pen other than 0. They've always been 2d10, pen 0 and that makes them good at taking out normally armoured infrantry without being a death sentence to everything in the blast radius that actually wears heavy armour or is in cover. If there's a thead somewhere discussing this I'd really like to read it.

 

 

I think you missed the intro text on the website where they say they're working on guardsmen starting gear (which I think covers lasguns and grenades) and vehicle weapons but haven't finished yet.

While you weren't refering to me I did indeed miss that since I only focused on the second paragraph and the pdf itself. Thanks for pointing that out.



#6 Braddoc

Braddoc

    Member

  • Members
  • 671 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 09:07 AM

I wonder why people made their AT wepaon penetration test against the front armour of a tank;  Except if you go all textbook steel balls, a typical soldier will shoot for the side or rear armour, no?



#7 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 09:15 AM

Braddoc said:

I wonder why people made their AT wepaon penetration test against the front armour of a tank;  Except if you go all textbook steel balls, a typical soldier will shoot for the side or rear armour, no?

My Tests were actually made against all facings. While attacking the rear or side facing greatly increases the effectiveness of AT Weapons most vehicles are still very tough even when attacking soley the rear or the side especially when it comes to common AT Weapons instead of just the most powerful ones. One such example would be the Krak Missile, the AT Weapon of choice if you are using a missile launcher. If you're trying to take down a Leman Russ with Krak Missiles I wish you good luck since you'll need about 12 hits to the rear to get it to 0 SI and even with a Lascannon you need more than 4 shots.



#8 Taroc

Taroc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 04:59 PM

Plushy said:

 Well, this had exactly nothing people have been talking about.

 

They answered my question about the Heavy Gunner Comrade talent from the first week :)

But true story.



#9 Darklordofbunnies

Darklordofbunnies

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 05:08 PM

We did get the Psy-Focus, so that's something. Otherwise, the big gripes are the variable lasguns, weight/encumbrance, and vehicles being indestructible. Those are just the one we can realistically expect to get done, so hopefully we see them soon.



#10 Hygric

Hygric

    Member

  • Members
  • 279 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 11:59 PM

They gave a big nerf to vehicles with the ability to set them on fire with a humble flamer now.  This is a good thing in my book.



#11 Andor

Andor

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 02 August 2012 - 12:58 AM

I've said it before but:

1st page, 2nd column, second paragraph on Favored Weapons: "these weapons mat not have an Availability higher than Very Rare" should be "these weapons may not have an Availability higher than Very Rare"



#12 DJSunhammer

DJSunhammer

    Member

  • Members
  • 602 posts

Posted 02 August 2012 - 05:15 AM

I don't see how adding an emphasis changes anything in that sentence.



#13 Andor

Andor

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 02 August 2012 - 07:44 AM

The bolding is only to show which word has the typo.



#14 Manyfist

Manyfist

    Member

  • Members
  • 100 posts

Posted 02 August 2012 - 03:13 PM

 I would like to see point value for regiment to a roll system. 



#15 MILLANDSON

MILLANDSON

    Playtester

  • Members
  • 3,356 posts

Posted 03 August 2012 - 03:49 PM

Manyfist said:

 I would like to see point value for regiment to a roll system. 

I wouldn't, and since it'd take a complete rewrite of the system to do that, I can almost guarantee it'll never happen.


~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.


#16 Unholy_Ravager

Unholy_Ravager

    Member

  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 04 August 2012 - 04:00 AM

 Wait as in roll randomly for the regiment? Why?



#17 Manyfist

Manyfist

    Member

  • Members
  • 100 posts

Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:58 AM

Unholy_Ravager said:

 Wait as in roll randomly for the regiment? Why?

Roll for each choice, like you roll for a home world, type of infantry..etc. much like in DH where you have the option to roll for everything including your name. Instead of a point based regiment creation you roll to see what you get. Then roll for either speciality or guardsmen then roll for career. Right now the regiment creation is bare. 



#18 remmus

remmus

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts

Posted 04 August 2012 - 10:59 AM

Manyfist said:

Unholy_Ravager said:

 

 Wait as in roll randomly for the regiment? Why?

 

 

Roll for each choice, like you roll for a home world, type of infantry..etc. much like in DH where you have the option to roll for everything including your name. Instead of a point based regiment creation you roll to see what you get. Then roll for either speciality or guardsmen then roll for career. Right now the regiment creation is bare. 

 

frankly I find rolls like that in games like DH to be dead wieght, things like your starting characterestics, wounds, etc to be fine, but why would you want to trust things like regiment setup (or heck character choises) to a random dice?



#19 Cifer

Cifer

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,790 posts

Posted 04 August 2012 - 12:03 PM

Roll for each choice, like you roll for a home world, type of infantry..etc. much like in DH where you have the option to roll for everything including your name. Instead of a point based regiment creation you roll to see what you get. Then roll for either speciality or guardsmen then roll for career. Right now the regiment creation is bare.

Take a d10.

Roll for regiment homeworld. Count down the homeworlds from Deathworld to Schola and reroll on everything above an 8.
Roll for regimental command. Count down the commanders from Bilious to Supine and reroll 10.
Roll for regiment type. Count down the types from Armoured Regiment to Siege infantry, rerolling everything above an 8.
Roll for training doctrines. Count down the training doctrines from Close Order Drill to Sharpshooters, rerolling everything above a 7.
Roll for equipment doctrines. Count down the equipment doctrines from Augmetics to Well-provisioned. Should you roll an 8 or higher, your regiment has no equipment doctrine.

For character generation, roll 1d10. If you roll 7 or below, you are a regular guardsman. 8 and above, you're a specialist. Then, roll a d10 and count down the specializations.

Writing that up took me ten minutes, with five of them spent making sure the regiment creation would on average result in 12 regiment points. I'm sure people can do that on their own.

That being said, it's still a waste of space as regiments generated by any rolling method will more often than not be rather illogical beasts that look exactly as frankensteinian as their creation is. As the type of regiment massively dictates the campaign type (a recon regiment will hopefully have less heavy fighting than an Armoured one), I can't think of a reason to leave that up to chance.



#20 Lupus House

Lupus House

    Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:52 PM

Musclewizard said:

Braddoc said:

 

I wonder why people made their AT weapon penetration test against the front armour of a tank;  Except if you go all textbook steel balls, a typical soldier will shoot for the side or rear armour, no?

 

 

My Tests were actually made against all facings. While attacking the rear or side facing greatly increases the effectiveness of AT Weapons most vehicles are still very tough even when attacking soley the rear or the side especially when it comes to common AT Weapons instead of just the most powerful ones. One such example would be the Krak Missile, the AT Weapon of choice if you are using a missile launcher. If you're trying to take down a Leman Russ with Krak Missiles I wish you good luck since you'll need about 12 hits to the rear to get it to 0 SI and even with a Lascannon you need more than 4 shots.

But you didn't factor in RF, because that makes a HUGE difference. you said 12 hits, at what 36 d10s rolled so 3 and 2/3rds RF. thats going to mess a tank up. and actually a lascanon needing about 4 to completely trash a vehicle form the rear sound close. I'd like to know side.

my main concern is with weapons like a meltagun or multi-melta, they seem to now lack killing power.






© 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