Jump to content

decPL

Members
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About decPL

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 07/08/1983

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Warsaw, Mazowieckie, Poland
  1. Given that corporations seem to fight with each other constantly makes it a viable faction; a somewhat different flavor would be a hired net-hitman.
  2. radioactivemouse said: I know the Star Wars theme can be inconsistent, but let's face it, does anyone know where I can find a ship that can do the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs (or whatever that meant)? Explain how a measure of distance somehow equaled a measure of time and I'll somehow explain how a Rancor can take down Home One. Challenge accepted Most smugglers in SW would use top-notch hyperdrives, where the difference in speed would not be that significant. On the other hand, in the particular case of Kessel Run, the notable obstacle that affected the length of the trip (and thus it's time) was the Maw black hole cluster, which caused the 'safe route' to run a semi-circle around it with a total length of 18 parsecs. Han boasted that he managed to navigate a much shorter path, travelling only 12 parsecs. Your turn
  3. According to the fluff, Space Marine power armour's backpack houses a small fussion reactor (I think it's in fact mentioned in the DW rulebook as well, but I don't have it with me ATM), which grants them a virtually infinite supply of power.
  4. I kinda thought so, but not sure I follow the logic though. Not sure about board games, as I never followed the boards that closely, but for roleplaying games the FAQ submittion threads seem just to be left there and keep generating content for further versions. Can't say I see the point in removing it.
  5. If by save you mean rolling defense dice, then no - only the target of the attack gets to use them.
  6. Am i really daft today (due to chronic lack of sleep), or has the FAQ submittion thread mysteriously disappeared?
  7. There aren't two missions, but rather two mission stages with distinct objectives. When Stage 1 is active (before you close the e-hole) Stage 2 is not in play and it won't affect it (so killing all locust does exactly nothing). Furthermore - fliping the stage 1 card guarantees you'll get some locust in play to have fun with during Stage 2
  8. First of all - nice work. That being said - some ramblings from my side: Stage 1 of Mission 1 says 'Cannot not explore level 2'. Characters in Mission 2: Two cards per turn seems OP to say the least. On the other hand having no special on Carmine just seems a bit poor. Unless you have that one player that you want to punish, I can't imagine people rushing to play a dumbed down character...
  9. Dam said: Yep, LOS and AI cards are the only limiters. If AI card poses no limit and there is LOS, Locust can shoot from even 10+ areas away. Although 5 areas away is the longest shot I've seen so far. But when it's a Theron Guard doing the attacking, you can go down pretty hard. 8 or 9 areas last game we've played - and that was 2 boomers. Didn't drop any of us, but it was nasty...
  10. Seems thought out, might give it a chance at some point. Two comments basically: The Kryll seem a bit lacklustre at only 2 attack dice and only attacking once. I appreciate it might be for balance reasons, but (at least on paper) it seems like an annoyance, rather than the inevitable doom moving out of light was in the CG. Don't have any ideas how to improve this without breaking the mission though. Very minor, but: might be English not being my primary language, but the way I read it the rules state Kryll don't attack in shade, while in CG they wouldn't attack in full light.
  11. Fnoffen said: Maccabbee said: Nevarus said: Would it be possible to get an offical reason as to the change from Mao to Wu Zetian in recent printings of Sid Meier's Civilization? Respectfully, g. ...and would it be possible to get a Wu Zetian player board if we have the old Mao? Second that! That'd be nice, +1!
  12. N0-1_H3r3 said: That's a little different. Consider the Thunderhawk Gunship. In the vehicles section, it gives you full details for what one of those aircraft can do, and the minimum Renown needed to actually request one. In the Imperial Assets section, there is also a Thunderhawk, drawn from the resources of an Astartes ally (because that's what the Astartes section of the Imperial Assets lists represent - other Space Marine Chapters also operating in or near the mission area). The difference, to my mind, is that the former is a Deathwatch Thunderhawk given to the Kill-Team to do with as they require (within reason), and which they may well operate themselves, while the latter is the combat dropship equivalent of asking a friend to drive you somewhere - it's still their vehicle, and they decide how it gets used, so you don't have anywhere near as much control over its actions. The other difference is that an Imperial Asset has to be available to spend requisition on - if there isn't a Space Marine Chapter nearby, you can't borrow one of their Thunderhawks, while requesting a vehicle from the Deathwatch armouries means they'll send one with you when you depart for the mission. Same with all other vehicle-related Imperial Assets - in all cases, you're employing the services of vehicles already in use by others, while requesting a vehicle from the Deathwatch gives it to the Kill-Team directly. No argument here - if those were easily comparable, it would be much easier to determine a requisiton cost on some of the vehicles, because you can request access to one as an asset. What I'm driving at is something along those lines: Using the RAW you can imagine the following scenarios (well, you can probably imagine a lot more, but that's not the point ): A. GM: You guys have a mission where you'll need to move fast between objectives. Have a rhino/land speeder/predator to move around. B. GM: You guys have a mission where the objectives are some distance apart. Players: Can we have a rhino/land speeder/predator? GM: Why not, you can have a rhino or a land speeder, there is no reason to use predator here. C. GM: You guys have a mission on a space hulk. Players: Can we have a rhino/land speeder/predator? GM: WTF?! Now if there were some requisiton values provided, scenario A and C wouldn't differ one bit. But B might go as follows: GM: You guys have a mission where the objectives are some distance apart. Players: Can we have a rhino/land speeder/predator? GM: Why not, you can requisition a rhino or a land speeder, there is no reason to use predator here. The difference is that the players won't be able to take as much equipment if they take a vehicle, so there is a tactical choice to be made (they still can acomplish the mission on foot, but they're trading mobility for e.g. firepower). Using RAW there is no choice on the players' side here - taking the vehicle has no drawbacks and the GM simply has to consider if he's feeling generous (again - I'm considering a mission where using a vehicle is a viable choice, but not mandatory; or perhaps there are several vehicles that could be used, each modifying the team's tactics and each with a distinct price).
  13. Siranui said: My point was that the Requisition is dependant on the importance and difficulty of the objective; not how far away it is. Imagine the objective 'Go to Antarctica' as opposed to 'Go to the cornershop'. One requires a vehicle, one does not, yet both may have the same Requisition allocated. <NitpickMode> Would you say those two objectives have the same difficulty (which determines the requisition amount)? </NitpickMode> Jokes aside, I understand how players misusing vehicles (e.g. by requesting one on a 'got to the cornershop' mission) could spoil the game. Still I would say it's your role as a GM (both out of character and acting as the KT's Watch Captain) to put your foot down for such obvious misuse (and not something that should happen very often given mature players). I on the other hand have a problem, both as a GM and a player, to e.g. compare the pros and cons of taking a jump pack on a mission vs. taking a space marine bike (which should be at least somewhat comparable) when the first one has defined rules (and the GM should have some valid reason to disallow taking a jump pack) and has some drawback for the player (i.e. requisition that could be spent elsewhere) and the other is just an arbitrary call by the GM.
  14. Siranui said: I don't think that it's a question of that, so much as vehicles are *too* important to be handled by mere requisition. It should be up to the GM what is appropriate. Give Requisition costs and players may feel the need to use vehicles inappropriately and to the detriment of the game. For example; taking a Shadowsword tank on a bodyguarding mission in a hive, or something equally ridiculous. Furthermore, the Requisition rules are dependant on the number of objectives; not the type. Consider the following missions objectives: Kill the norn queen in the middle of the Tyranid mothership. Go to Antartica and plant a flag at the Pole. Storm the heretic General's command bunker. If all of the above were objectives, they would all give the same requisition to the players, yet one of these missions *requires* them to spend a large number of Requisition on a vehicle and the other two would be not appropriate to take vehicles on. Simply: It would be absurd to simply assign costs to vehicles. It should be down to the GM to deicide what type of vehicles PCs should use on a mission. That was my first impression after reading the vehicles section - the vehicles are too important to be governed by requisition rules and should only be provided at GM's discretion . Then again - if you look further into RoB (might be my random reading order ) you'll find exact requisition cost for e.g. Baneblade support and orbital bombardment - which at least in my book are way more important than providing the KT with a Rhino. I agree that having a Land Raider for a mission shouldn't be simply a matter of spending some requisition (but that applies to said orbital bombardment just as well), but is requesting a space marine bike really that different from requesting a (mastercrafted?) jump pack. Obviously the bottomline is that most GMs may come up with some simple rules for requisitioning the most basic vehicles (I know I will, for the reasons stated above), but it would be useful to have some guidelines provided. I fully understand that you wouldn't ever use those values even if they were provided - just as I will never allow my players to pay requisition for an orbital bombardment (by the way - they used one in Price of Hubris, but that was determined by the mission itself, not requisition rules). Still - having those values provided in the book, just as they're provided for almost all other type of 'resource' available to players wouldn't have any negative impact on your game, right? PS. I know I'm taking this out of context, but one could seriously disagree with the statement that all of the objectives provided should confer the same amount of requisition. First of all they're of quite different difficulty (at least taken in vacuum - maybe the GM has planned a massive chaos invasion in Antartica?) and second - at least the first one should probably be divided into a few distinct steps (each an objective on its own).
  15. N0-1_H3r3 said: Vehicles don't have requisition values; obtaining vehicles is described in the sidebar "Kill-Teams Acquiring Vehicles" on page 171 of Rites of Battle. Basically, if a Kill-Team asks to use a vehicle on their mission, so long as the Kill-Team's leader has sufficient Renown, and the GM agrees that a vehicle is appropriate for that mission, they can have it. Which is frankly what I hate about the vehicle section. There are rules for requisitioning every single piece of equipment, including really trivial things (which a GM may or may not ignore - but the option's there), but not for something as important as vehicles. Brother Nathaniel, we've noticed you've requisitioned 1 data slate and 2 bolt pistol clips over the limit for this mission. This is a severe breach of Codex Astartes, which we'll be reporting to your chapter! Oh, and by the way, we seem to have a Predator Tank lying around... Or maybe a set of assault bikes... Take your choice, it's not as if they're worth anything, right?
×
×
  • Create New...