Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About TheMightyWarHamster

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Würzburg, Bavaria, Germany
  1. Turreted Macrocannons Hulls: Raiders, Frigates 1 Power 2 Space 2 SP Captains of a more martial inclination often add additional macrocannon turrets to the prows of their ships to improve their field of fire. Turreted Macrocannons upgrade a macrocannon armament mounted in the Prow weapon slot of a raider or frigate hull. Treat the upgraded macrocannon as if it was mounted in a Dorsal slot instead. There is only war: When working toward a Military objective, the players receive an additional 50 Achievement points toward completing that objective. Unbalanced: Starships are precisely balanced, something this modification affects, meaning they suffer -3 to manouverability.
  2. Quicksilver said: I think it may be more nessisary for me to clear up my modivations. I'm really playing devil's advicate here, trying to point out the things that are eather what I feal are flaws or that I think have the potential to break emersion for some players. I don't meen to come down hard as 'your shouldn't do this'. I can understand the problem of people not being interested in the space combat, but I think there are other ways to approch this issue, such as moving to abstract (markerless) combat and making sure everyone had something to do aleast every few turns, even if it's just yelling at the crew. However, if you think this is the best way to get on with the plot, I fully support it. i tried abstract combat, but the problem i encountered was that my players had problems visualizing events and in a battle, where facing and distance are an issue, i find it hard to portray it well. as to breaking immersion - the huge amount of time that passes during a space combat is, at least for my group, a flowbreaker. personal combat is nonstop action, but during space combat, a character could theoretically take a shower and grab a bite to eat. i get it that one test represents half an hour of activity, but still... Quicksilver said: 3) While they may have googled it, they've been called Plasma Drives from before FFG had anything to do with it. Perhaps more importantly, we can pritty much rule out that kind of plasma drive as a viable option, they don't have anywhere near the acceleration nessisary to produce what's listed in the book, much less whats described. Its being considered for deap space probes because of its ability to store lots of fuel, and its higher top speed compared to conventional rockets (both because of wight of fuel and relitive high speeds of the exit particles), not because of acceleration. While your right that game-rules can't be used to prove non-real physics, FFG making up numbers can't be used to prove real physics eather. Why doesn't a ship have to turn around to stop? Or perhaps more importantly, why does it only take 2-4 weeks to get anywere in a system, be it Earth to Mars or Earth to Pluto? you can spend hours discussing made-up technology, i know.^^ personally, i choose to believe, that 40k ships move under newtonian laws maybe a plasma drive is a fusion rocket, or maybe it's simply made up. we really can't tell, can we? Quicksilver said: 4) I was just pointing out how you were streaching the internal logic. Even if it is going really really fast, why should a ship do the same damage in 5 minutes that it does in 1-2 hours during a pitched battle? i'd like to fall back on my abstraction/rool of cool joker card.^^ but to argue internal logic: maybe all the guys normally doing other stuff are now firing and loading. or the first salvoes are being fired long before coming into combat range, creating a submunition screen in front of the ship. the higher the ships' speed, the less projectiles hit - whyever. in the end, i just want a system that offers a certain amount of tactical choice, but not so much, that it's boring for non-wargamers.
  3. maybe i should clarify my intent again: i like space combat in RT, i'm simply offering an alternative to either spice things up, or to keep the non-wargamers from falling asleep. my party fought one big space battle (it took about 90 minutes to resolve), and of the six of us, i was the only active wargamer and one other was interested in those. The two of us really had a blast maneouvering the ships, trading shots, using asteroids as cover. the other four nearly dozed off. to make my system able to coexist with the original, i added the fluff description of a high speed encounter. 1) maybe. that's down to style, i guess. 2) i never really got into bfg, but the IA stuff is pretty much in line with standard BL stuff. Still, some writers like abnett use "real" physics from time to time. I remember in one of the ghosts novels, one of the ships fighting an incursion misjudged the distance, decelerated too late and took itself out of the combat by overshooting. 3) Well, the book gives us numbers for mass, max sustainable accel and all that. the combat mechanics are not a good "proof" for the uncoventional physics argument, i think. after all, there is no z-axis either, and nobody is arguing that the 40k universe is a slab of space infinitely long and wide, but only 10k kilometers high. not everyone is into realism as much as i am, and calculating accel or decel rates, vectors, delta-V and stuff would kinda take the fun out of combat. also, plasma drive: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrically_powered_spacecraft_propulsion#Ion.2Fplasma_drives i am pretty sure, that the ffg guys at least googled what they were putting in their books.^^ 4) I read that part. So, maybe the crew only fires once every half an hour to reduce wear, to conserve ammo or for whatever other reason. Maybe the Void Gunners' union forced them to sign a form that forbids them from firing their guns before the ship has completed its move. Said move takes 29 Minutes. It doesn't say anywhere what the rate of fire of every single component is. That isn't important either. Glossing over such details is what abstraction is for. I know it's hard to knock out a ship in one turn (linked broadside from a heavy cruiser with 3 ryza plasma cannons: 12d10+48, not counting shields), that's why most times, each ship will fire two or more volleys. 5) Thanks for clearing that up. Relative speeds and stuff are not my forte. In general the extra damage is supposed to crank up the danger, even when exchanging only very few shots. I go with the layman's explanation of "faster things hurt more when they hit you" and to keep confusion and bookkeeping to a minimum, the modifier applies to all weapons. also again, the shrapnel i was refferring to mostly is from macrocannon shells exploding inside the shield barrier. pieces normally too small to penetrate a ship's armour get more dangerous, the higher the relative speed between shooter and target gets, right?
  4. Thanks for the reply. Quicksilver said: It's a coherent system, and one that sounds like it would work out very well, although I find that secret decisions are always hard as the storyteller. thanks, but why is it hard? in this case, you play the captain of the opposing ship. compare the players' ship to your own and make a tactical decision: stand and fight or run. Quicksilver said: That being said, I don't think this system fits in with the fluff at all. Besides just the descriptions of space combat we see in the books, or the bases out of the BFG game, it also doesn't work under its own internal world. I know, i love those battle descriptions. I don't want to completely replace the standard system, but offer an alternative. In almost all of the stories, you have fleets of warships, that more or less agree on the whole "let's have ourselves a nice shooting war" thing. In RT, you play rogue traders in a single vessel, most of the time. maybe you do not want to duke it out with the enemy. Quicksilver said: In your vision, the ships essentially pass by each other in a few minutes. again, my system is supposed to simulate an intercept at cruising speed, not a dogfight. take for example the Sword. It has a max sustainable acceleration of 4.4g, that's rounded (very roughly) 44m/s². Since Velocity = Acceleration x Time, after one turn (30 minutes) of full acceleration, its speed is about 79.2 km/s - that is 285120km/h or 14 void units per round. This is well within the Saber's speed cap. But in space, there is no maximum speed, since continuous thrust = continuous acceleration. Imagine at what speed the Sword would be travelling after a day of continuous acceleration. So, yeah. They'll pass each other real quick. Quicksilver said: The strength rating of the weapons is based on around half and hour of continuous fire. By the fluff, it shouldn’t even be possible for the ships to even brake threw each other’s void shields over the course of the entire five minute engagement. Citation Needed.^^ I really can't find anything to back that up. In the book it's always "one devastating volley" and so on. Quicksilver said: The Micro-shrapnel doesn’t make particular sense either, as one of the points of a Void Shield is to deflect micrometeorites and other small, fast moving items that are a danger to navigation. It also only makes sense as an add-on to fire if your actually using physical rounds, which only two of the weapons presented so far do. With micro-shrapnel, i mostly meant the airburst (spaceburst?) from standard macrocannons (which should be the most widespread armament), yeah, but also parts sliced off, slagged or kaboom'd from beam weapon hits. Those happen within the shield. Imagine a ray from a sunsear laser, hitting - whatever - a geller field emitter. The emitter bursts into pieces flying off in all directions. If rest of the ship is still moving at a measurable fraction of lightspeed, those are bound to leave a dent. I really hope, i got that high school physics right and didn't make a fool out of myself.
  5. I've been reading some "hard" science-fiction novels lately (Antares War, Night's Dawn) and thought about how combats played out in those books. The way rogue trader handles ship-to-ship combat, it assumes that both ships are starting from basically zero speed and both parties *want* to engage in a dogfight. But what happens, if both combattants have been accelerating for some time towards each other? Their engagement will be over in minutes or even seconds, with no quick way to turn and re-engage, turning the normal, gentlemanly tactical combat into edge-of-the-seat, split-second decisions. Head-on Engagement A head-on engagement, or intercept, needs no tactical map and will take less than 5 minutes to play through. As play aids, you might want to use a couple of different tokens for each party: break through, hold fast and engage for phase one, evade and attack for phase two. Use coloured dice, or write the orders on scraps of paper. If you really want to crank up speed and tension of the fight, use a stopwatch, giving the players only ten or twenty seconds to make their decisions. If they break the time limit, in phase one they default to “Hold Fast!” in phase two, they simply do nothing – indecision has literally paralysed their crew. During an intercept, neither party can take extended or manoeuver actions - both crews are strapped into their acceleration couches and there is simply no time for anything but firing and praying to the god-emperor. Phase 1 – Determine Speed: while both ships power towards each other, their captains must decide: “Break Through!” (red), “Hold Fast!” (yellow) or “Engage!” (green). Each party covertly selects the token corresponding to their decision. Let your players discuss for a short time without listening in. When they are ready, count to three. On three, you and the party's captain reveal their choice. Proceed to: Phase 2 – Determine Duration: Depending on your choices, both ships will have the option of firing for a number of rounds. Consult this table for the exact number and fire arcs: “Break Through!” “Hold Fast!” “Engage!” “Break Through!” 1 Fore 1 Fore + 1 Side 2 Fore + 1 Side “Hold Fast!” 1 Fore + 1 Side 2 Fore + 1 Side 3 Fore + 1 Side “Engage!” 2 Fore + 1 Side 3 Fore + 1 Side 4 Fore + 2 Side Note: For the purpose of range dependent modifier, the first half (round up) of Fore arc shooting action are considered to happen at 10 VU, the second half at 5 VU and the Side arc shooting happens at 2 VU. Phase 3 - “Fire!”/”Evasive Manoeuvers!”: With speeds determined, both parties decide if they want to open fire or evade the incoming ordnance. Again, let the party discuss without listening in and make your own choice. Count to three and reveal your decisions. “Fire!” means the ships fires all weapons in the relevant arc. Due to the extremely high relative speed, add +2 to every weapon’s damage code, as at hypervelocity, even microshrapnel hit with the force of a railgun slug. If both selected “Break Through!”, the hypervelocity bonus increases to +4 weapon damage. “Evasive Manoeuvers!” also works as advertised – the ship’s pilot takes the Extended Action of the same name. Note: There is no initiative order during an intercept, all ships act and fire simultaneously (Evasive Action happens first, though – duh.). Yes, that does open up the possibility of mutual destruction. And yes, that is intentional. In the rare case that both parties chose “Engage!”, don’t apply the hypervelocity damage bonus, instead both ships can take one extended action during either of the side arc firing rounds. Apply common sense at what actions can be taken, for example, there is no time for hit and run or boarding actions, although a callous captain might choose to sacrifice his assault craft for one more chance to damage his enemy, leaving them either dead or marooned, with neither sufficient fuel nor air to return to the mothership. Repeat Phase 3 until the ships have passed each other or until one (or both) parties are destroyed. Bombers: You normally can NOT attack with bombers during an intercept, as they lack the necessary delta-V for a return journey. If you choose to use them, they will make their attack run and then they’ll be considered lost with all hands. The captain might need to make a Hard or harder interaction test to convince the crews, as they know it will be a one-way trip. Torpedoes: There is no way to reload Torpedo Tubes during an intercept – all crew are strapped in, so once all tubes are empty, that’s it. Also, no re-engage action for the torpedo, it doesn’t have sufficient delta-V either. Blockade Run A blockade run works almost identical to an intercept, except that the defender can choose to set up his ship(s) either head on or with their broadsides towards the runner. During Phase 1, the blockade automatically chooses “Engage” During Phase 3, the blockade gets an additional round of shooting after (if) the runner has broken through. This parting shot can only be taken, if the blockade has weapons able to fire in that arc. That means a ship that meets the runner head on needs a keel weapon to take a parting shot. The blockade can choose “Evasive Manoeuvers”, but takes the Pilot Test at one difficulty step harder – their ships are moving at negligible speeds (if at all) and make for easy targets.
  6. Sunslayer Torpedo Launchers 1 Power, 2 Space, 1 Ship Point - Variable Strength*, 1d10+10 Damage, Crit 5, Range 6 * The gunner chooses the number of torpedoes he wants to fire, maximum number is the number of tubes the ship carries. Prow Supplemental Component: Torpedo Tubes can only be mounted on ships with a free Prow Weapon slot. Purchase each Tube individually, maximum number of tubes is two for raiders, four for frigates and six for cruisers. Torpedo Tubes do not preclude installation of the Armoured Prow component. Finite Ammo: The antimatter warheads mounted on the Sunslayer are so rare and dangerous, that only very few are allocated to a single ship. Maximum number of torpedoes is twice the number of tubes. Spent torpedoes are Very Rare and must be purchased individually. Ultima Ratio: Each Sunslayer torpedo is the size of a small hab block and its antimatter reaction is so violent, that neither void shields nor hull armour offer any protection. Its size can also be a weakness, though - the target ship can make a Challenging (+0) Turret Rating * 10 test, as the defenders frantically try to shoot down the incoming weapon. Each degree of Success shoots down one Torpedo. The Sunslayer's Power is feared by all spacefarers - add +10 to all Intimidate Tests made on the ship. War Spirit: Should a torpedo miss its intended target, place a marker on that point of the tactical map. During the next turn, the torpedo will try to reengage its target. Treat this as a shooting attack from the marked position, using the torpedo's own BS of 30. I know that DarkReign have already converted the BFG torpedo Rules for Rogue Trader, but I'd like to offer this as a more streamlined alternative for players who prefer a simulationist combat system.
  7. Rakshasa said: For the sheer callous bleakness of Imperial Society, films like Brazil work quite well - though they're more suited to Dark Heresy than the Final Frontier of Rogue Trader. ****, i was gonna suggest brazil.^^ another film i found very 40k ish was Dark City, simply the kafkaesque mood of a city of constant night, without escape and being subject to a higher power you don't understand. again, this is more Dark Heresy, but it definitely carries that vibe. as far as bleakness goes, children of men is very nice, with the whole class system, violent authorities et al. going off on a tangent here, but the mangas BLAME! and biomega (really everything from Tsutomo Nihei) really capture the vastness of a hive city's cyclopean architecture. Finally, this:
  8. Looking good so far. Personally, I would have the torpedoes do 2d10 + 6, ignoring armour instead of voids and have the players purchase each one individually. I really liked the idea from Star of Damocles of the "Family Torpedo" that they always lug around, but never really want to use because it's so rare and expensive.
  9. miollnit said: The only "Big ship only" weapon is the macro battery, and it is not even a good one : you have to make 5 level of success to use it at full power. With "only" 4 success, you are better with laser or plasma, since you have a crit of 4 and better range or damage.So yeah, the broadside is almost crap. In fact it is good in one sort of fight : cruiser vs cruiser, at point-blank. Ok, why not? I disagree. The nice thing about broadsides is the linked fire option, so if the nice and squishy raider comes into one of the firing arcs, he will get such a beating that he will not make another pass. And with the necessary upgrades and the aim action, getting max hits is not too hard. add a munitorium to the equation and the raider will eat 11d + 33 damage with one hit. At 30-ish HP. miollnit said: But giving laser, plasma and battery lance to a tinny little escort ship like the raider? And half the hull point of a light cruiser? And only 1/4 less armour than a cruiser? Right now, raiders hit as hard as light cruiser (and in all positions), turn at 90°, go faster than anyone, and can take a lot of punishement. This is not a glass canon, this is the ultimate starfighter. firstly, 30 HP are not "a lot of punishment". and second, that's kind of the point of the raider. That's why it's THE pirate ship. You are fast, deadly and agile, but a single volley from a capital ship will waste you. Also, they are limit by having to line up their targets in the prow arc, which takes a lot of comfort out of sniping. miollnit said: By the way, frigates are also way too powerfull, but at least they can't use lance (no prow slot). Except for the Modified Firestorm Naval Frigate. AKA the example player ship, which is hands down my favourite hull.
  • Create New...