Jump to content

skinny dragon

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About skinny dragon

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    chesterfield, derbyshire, United Kingdom
  1. My problem with the heavy weapon training talent is that on its own it does absolutely nothing, it's the only weapon training talent that doesn't train you in a weapon. Also it gives very few weapon proficiencies even when its tied to other weapon training talents (only one or two per additional talent) while every other training talent gives at least three on its own (including the heavy weapon if it happens to be on a vehicle). My other problem is that while heavy weapons require two talents to learn neither talent provides any bonus (or penalty reduction) on its own (this is more a logic issue (yeah I know 40k isn't logical)). Normally in real life if you need to know two things to do something well then knowing either thing on its own is going to be a lot better than not knowinganything about it. If heavy weapon training was universal that would also fix the problem but I think the inbalance it would make would tip the scales far more in the other direction and make it better than any other training talent. I suppose it could also be fixed by putting in weapon training melee, pistol, basic and vehicle and insisting that characters had two matching talents for each weapon type which could also give more variation to character creation but would require a lot of rebalancing depending on who got which trainings and where they were added
  2. I'll use an example to show why I think the RAW don't work and how botrh my preferred and Muscle Wizards possibly better solution affect it We'll use 3 characters with identical BS A has bolt las and sp training B has hvy las and sp training C has las melta and sp traIning They find a Muilti-melta Under RAW all chars are on -20 to hit as none of them have the 2 proficincies required My solution (with 10 for heavy and 20 for type) then A is -30 for not knowing any proficiencies, B is - 20 for heavy training but not matching type, and C is -10 for matching type but not having heavy training MuscleWizards solution then A is -20 for no proficiency while B and C are -10 for one proficiency each. I'm not sure how you thought heavy weapon training would give chars bonuses for other weapon types when they aren't even proficient in the heavy weapon vaariant
  3. Musclewizard said: I'm doing something similar in my games but in the other direction. If you are operating a Heavy Laser weapon for example and you have only heavy weapon training or only las weapon training you can use the weapon at -10. If you have both its +-0.. 1I do like this idea. Sorry to start a thread and leave it hangingb but I've just got my net back. One of the main reasons I didn't propose it myself was that I thought it would make the re-write harder if it became rules but that's the job of FFG not us beta testers isn't it. I think you may have missed my point slightly Varn as if I understand the guns you are referring to properly you would already have sp training which would mean trhat under two of my proposals you wouild still be on the same -20 and under the other two propsals be better off on a -15 or even -10 which would both be better.than rules as written
  4. I think that we need to alter how heavy weapon training works slightly. I propose an increased penalty for using heavy weapons untrained with each of their training talents stepping this penalty down. This solves a couple of problems A soldier with no training in the weapon at all would now be less proficient than one with half the trainings Heavy weapons training will now have a direct impact on its own A weapon requiring two proficiencies because of its complication is now actually harder to use untrained I have been toying around with this in my head to try and get the balance right but I would appreciae feedback on the options if you even think its a good idea. option 1 a -40 penalty to satrt and each proficiency taking it down by 20 ( think the initial hit is too high) option 2 a -30 initial penalty and each proficieny taking it down by 15 (quite like this one but it would probably involve more re-writing) option 3 a - 30 initial penalty hvy weapons gives -10 and type gives -20 (simplest to rewrite/understand but I'm not sure if hvy weapons training would balance with the weapon traing type talents) option 4 a -30 inintal penalty hvy weapons give -20 type gives -10 ( donh't like personally but included for completeness)
  5. Looking at the characteristic advance table I believe that the expert advance for 0 matching characteristics should have been changed. In my copy of the errata it is still at the 2,500 point value as the original beta while the trained version has decreased dramatically, as has the expert level with one matching attribute
  6. Page 86 to 87. The speciallist uses for the skill operate ie surface, aeronautica and voidship appear to be broken dolwn into further specialisations in one of the grey boxes. Every other skill has these grey boxes titled special uses which would fit more accurately with the descriptive text
  7. As the support speciallists are drawn from institutioins (or even races) outside of the regimental norm they will not have had the basic training and background represented by these choices eg a storm trooper from a schola progenium wasn't brought up on a death world. The game text says that the benefits are for guardsmen but this is also ambiguous as it could refer to guardsmen speciallities or as sometimes in the book any character. Logically I would probably think that no they shouldn't but does this unbalance the game? Thoughts and coimments very welcome
  8. Thanks for your thoughts yes I've checked mechandrite use (weapon) the same misprint as DH costs 500xp. and you do remember that you can only use the same 1/2 action once so firing a mechandrite and a storm bolter can't both be done. If I implemented the rule I'm still thinking about, I would add you can only fire one weapon as a free action and I'd still make shooting round corners a half action. Personally I think this makes it only slightly worse than a weapon MIU in a staright fight doesn't allow you to use too much massed firepower and reserves its advantage with an implied price. Ooops re-read the talents that will teach me not to make presumptions utility now covers all normal mechandrites and weapon covers ranged and melee maybe the talent is worth it now after all although the machinator array still seems to be the only way of fitting anything but a compact las-pistol so I'm back to being undecided. Think I may have to discuss it with my players unless theirs a flaw in my logic one of you can spot?
  9. I didn't necessarily mean it should be better just not so much worse. Also 500xp vs one aquisition roll the techpriest should have something fancy for that expenditure. and I know they always sucked why my dh techpriest didn't bother. I was just wondering about dropping the action requirement for my players as I'll be GMing this and if anyone pays that much xp I want to give them something. It looks to me like they copied something mediocre straight across for the techpriest at an xp cost, then built something better for everyone no xp cost. Anyway if no-one thinks I'm missing an obvious advantage of the mechandrite I'll do this for my players I like to give them things so they don't think so badly of me when I throw them against the big nasties
  10. The ballistic mechandrite a tech-priest only sacred implant seems under powered in comparisson to the weapon miu available for everyone. simple comparrison ballistic mechandrite = compact laspistol. Weapon MIU can have a choice of guns mounted ballistic mechandrite = reaction. Weapon MIU = free action. Yes the mechandrite is 2m long but has no optical targetting so it can't be too far from the tech priests "eyes". I can see a possible tactical advantage paired with either a servo-skull or optical mechandrite for shooting round corners but I would think that the equipment they make for themselves would be on a par with that they sell. Should fring this mechandrite be a free action, like the MIU, while you are firing it in the same manner as a normal pistol and a reaction to move it to a new position? Thoughts comments and criticisms welcome even if you think I'm completely off track
  11. RocketPropelledGrenade said: My interpretation on both "Judged and Found Wanting" and "Explorator Implants" is that the Cybernetics section is not availableonly those systems which replace a basic function of the body are valid. Legs, arms, and respiratory bionics are green lighted in my game, and I may allow Cybernetic Senses. My inclination is to use the yardstick of whether or not a common quality system provides a mechanical benefit. My problem with this is that both sections specifically reference implants which is the heading for the non-replacement items. "judged and found wanting" has its own problem in that the component is poor quality and "explorator implants" is the special abillity for a tech priest As for the mechandrite issue I would probably rule that if a tech-priest spends the xp for a mechandrite he has the contacts to get it fitted in the first down-time available including the pre-game down time. Or did you mean the manipulator mechandrite which should be its own talent but appears to be missing from the list
  12. GreyLord said: This was written over a month ago, and correlates to what we've seen so far...and IT DOESN'T SOUND GOOD...not like a board game? How many times can Mr. Little repeat himself? Still looking for more stuff. http://www.graham-mcneill.com/gmblog/PermaLink,guid,24ed7843-8f78-48b7-a2cc-507afc907eab.aspx WFRP 3 It was in interesting evening, and the game was very different to anything I’ve played before, with a lot of table space taken up by character sheets, action and ability cards, dice etc. It felt like a strange hybrid of board game and roleplaying game at first, sorry to spoil your propaganda but I think the sectio I put in bold in this sentence needs emphasising. When he saw the things that has most the community thinking its a boardgame hybrid he did as well. But apparently he changed his mind when he said how good the system was later now I don't know if it will be any good and at that price I'm definitely reserving judgement until I've seen it but I don't think it should definitely be ruled out yet. ps the words "at first" should be bold but it didn't come out too well
  13. In response to the waterstones comments I got mine from there yesterday and there was at least one spare so I don't think they have problems ordering from ffg (by the way I come from a smallish town so one spare is more than it sounds). They had tried to hide it though I was very dissapointed when I looked at the rp shelf (Yes that small a town ) but did manage to find it on the shelf above. I think the main issue seemed to be a confusion on release dates I've seen stores claiming about a whole week of different dates
×
×
  • Create New...