Jump to content

Peacekeeper_b

Members
  • Content Count

    2,485
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Peacekeeper_b

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Fort Meade, Maryland, United States
  1. I did some early work on Zweihander, it has many good ideas in it. I could see 4E going in a similar direction. I like the idea of a core book with only half of the original careers from the 2E book, then fill up the rest with new careers. Feature different monsters in the main book other than just beastmen, skaven, orcs and such.
  2. Exactly. First, I may not have to buy all the "re-hashed" books, but new players would. Second, its not uncommon for a new edition to "re-hash" older material. I am less likely to buy a new game where what changed is the rules and not the setting/background. Everyone in my group (in Germany at the time) stopped playing WFRP when 3E came out and when I got to my new group (in Maryland) no one was interested in 3E either. Everyone was comfortable and satisfied with 2E. It can be profitable to re-launch 4E as a revised 2E instead of 3E revisited. First, as I said earlier, they don't have to worry about GW trying to keep their new nifty dice mechanic system. Second, there is a long history of great games in the Warhammer Universes that use that system of a modified variety of it. Third, they can (as some one else mentioned) focus on areas long left untended, such as The Moot, Elves, a real Border Princes book, Lustria and so forth. The Warhammer world provides a lot of background and possibilities. To think the sales of the game is limited to its "rules" is quite silly. Even when the fantasy battles miniature rules "change" they barely change, just enough to get the people to buy a new book that has pretty much the exact same fluff. So yeah, you re-use the fluff, revise the stats, upgrade the system and target different sections of the setting and different styles of play in stand alone RPGs (it seems to be working for 40K). Hell I would buy the FFG 3E books if they had 2E stats for them.
  3. It doesn't have to have a new system for that. Either system can be "hero-ized" as they are.
  4. You cannot see it, doesn't mean it wont happen. By making it back to the D100 (and better) version they can keep better control of their own system (Lucasfilm has a past of letting their contracted RPG publishers keep their systems, just not their settings) and lets WFRP be developed alongside W40KRP. Just like how RT, DW, BC, OW all used the same "core" system, any new WFRP could just more or less copy-paste-edit-update those rules. It doesn't have to be set in the end times just because the WFB setting is going that way. It will probably just stay the same setting it is now in.
  5. They wont wait until 2016. That would be a waste of 2 years of their license. They probably will go back to the original system (DH style maybe, but it still is the same game at the core) just so they can make books that can be used across the lines easier.
  6. Modiphius is not making WFRP. I cannot say publicly what they are producing, but I can say this, no one has mentioned them yet.
  7. They will have to start with 2E as that system is owned by GW. The 3E system is owned by FFG (hence why the use a version of it in star wars). With any luck Black Library will take it back over and continue where 2E left off or take 2E and adjust it with some of the 40K RPG rules (but hopefully not the traits and such rules for how to buy advances, skills and talents, that system is horrid).
  8. Fort Meade here, have a group of around 10 players. Email me at peacekeeper_b@yahoo.com I run the Fort Meade Gamers and Post 35 Dust Devils International we play usually at Dropzone Games or Games And Stuff in Glen Burnie.
  9. Not in Arlington, but not too terribly far away. Fort Meade, Maryland. Email me at peacekeeper_b@yahoo.com and we can talk. We primarily play Warfare. We have a Warfare tournament on March 15th in Glen Burnie.
  10. I will be honest here. I left the community and the 40K RPGs after teh Only War Beta-test because I hated it. I realize I am in the major minority here but what I wanted and hoped for was a continuation of what was started in DH1E and RT and not the changes that began in DW and reached fuition in BC and OW. The major things I wanted changed in DH for the 2E was careers and Ranks. I wanted the careers renamed to be less specific (Warrior instead of Guardsman) and I wanted some more freedom in ranks and skills but not the way it was presented in BC and OW. I liked the alternate ranks and background packages once presented in The Inquisitor's Handbook and think DH2 could take a approach along those lines from the start (multiple starting packages per career, more starting XPs, requirements to rank up beyond spending X number of Experience). However, while I may have stopped with my support of DH and the 40K games from FFG (please god let that contract end) it does not mean I want it to fail or for other fans to dislike it. I accept that the Dark Heresy I like is pretty much dead, but I have the books and can always play it the original way or even adjust the rules myself.
  11. Line of Sight is blocked if you cannot see the infantry behind the tank. If you can see part of the infantry models then theywould be in hard cover.
  12. Zach's official reply: "Hi CS, Your answer is as good as any, as there are no specific rules regarding falling damage or rooftop overruns. With only the current rules to go by, I would probably rule that the zombies would be forced to move to within 1 inch of the walker, and if they are forced off the building in the process they would be placed onto the ground at the base of the building but would take no damage from the fall, regardless of how far they fall. They would still need to adhere to the rules for vertical movement if they decided to make a return to the rooftop, and if several stories were involved, it could potentially cost them more than a single activation to do so. However, if I had my way with the rules on this one, I would probably also have any Soldier unit that is forced off a building suffer a */1 attack for every story/3" beyond the first that it falls. So, although a single story drop would cause no damage, falling two stories would result in the unit suffering a */1 attack, a fall of three stories would result in the unit suffering a **/1 attack, and so on."
  13. I think the key to this lies in the wording of the rule. "If the vehicle would end its movement within 1” of any Soldier miniature, that miniature must move the minimum distance to be at least 1” away from the vehicle, by the shortest route possible." This, to me, means that the miniatures being overrun could move more than 1" if they had to. So in your case they would have to move to either where the model is no longer at (so essentially you are just swapping space with the squad) or they would have to spend the movement to go down or up a floor. It is probably a rule that needs rewritten or errata'd to a certain degree. I should cause a reaction marker IMHO and if the infantry cannot move (for whatever reason, already have a reaction/suppression marker, are trapped and so forth) the suppression roll should become and attack. Lastly, the other option is if they models in question (the infantry) cannot move the required 1", stop the vehicle 1" away but resolve suppression anyway (moot point against zombies).
  14. There are three ways this could be resolved. 1) Unable to move the 1" required the Zombies must react with movement to make the 3" movement to go down 1 story. Move zombies, give reactioon marker. 2) The zombies cannot flee the 1" required and therefore are removed from play (destroyed). 3) The walker cannot enforce the 1" distance move because of its location and therefore probably cannot overrun (lamps and chairs and holes in the floor slow its movement). Alternatively, you could just rule that since they cannot move out of the way, instead of taking the damage in suppression (whcih doenst affect zombies or apes anyway) the models take a 1/1 attack per armor of the vehicle (in this case a 4/1 attack). The rule is not focused on because normally walkers dont go into buildings, but with initial set up and aero-walker options I suppose it could come up. I will send an official question to Zach as well.
  15. ItsUncertainWho said: KevinBakon said: My opinion: yes, no, yes I would agree with this. Completely.
×
×
  • Create New...