Jump to content

Mantis Sine

Members
  • Content Count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Mantis Sine

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Arkansas, United States
  1. Wouldn't Carl Thonius in Ravenor have started out as an Adept? And, the doctor who helped Patience in the same series, a "religious" man, could be a cleric.
  2. Kasatka said: The counter-argument about being able to update the rules for each subsequent release are kind of moot… you can still do that in a splat book. The Only War supplement for the Generic 40k RP line could contain all modifications to the core rules neccessary to play Only War games. World of Darkness does this with all of their products, whereby if you play a supernatural creature or something from a splat book then you get a different character sheet and some unique mechanics. The core rules stay the same however. I see zero problem with FFG coming up with a universally compatible core book covering the 40k setting as a whole, and listing basic mechanics such as Attributes, Skills, Talents, base line Human characters, a basic Armoury, Experience, Combat, Injuries, Skill Tests, Opposed/Assisted Rolls, and even a spread of minor NPCs. Then each splat book can cover specifics of character generation for that specific setting, as well as unique armoury options, rules and enemies. Source books can still be brought out to further expand upon something, but could include options for ALL 40k RP lines. For example, the recent Lathe Worlds release for DH would have, under this proposed system, covered the fluff of Forge Worlds and then presented some unique armoury options and some character options for all the lines. The reasoning that FFG have been tweaking the system with each release is fair, but it falls over a bit when we find each book has at least one instance where someone has copied and pasted an un-erratad entry from DH core, or something that references a now defunct mechanic or character option from a previous book. I think its obvious that FFG have wanted to move away from character classes with split advance trees - they moved towards classes without split trees, but then added in tons of alternate ranks. They then tried having parallel advance tables. Then we had a classless system that relied on a clunky alignment attribute. And now we have the aptitude system which with a little more work (such as a clearly laid out place for aptitudes and XP costs on the character sheet) could easily form a baseline for all future supplements. Just no more 'alternate rank' options for classes please, just focus on additional skills and talents that are purchasable by anyone, and extra armoury and equipment options. Look at what happened with Palladium, blech!
  3. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/62137164/deathwatch-character-sheet-ink-saver_merged.pdf Original minus black fields, better, done.
  4. ak-73 said: There is an editable, savable old sheet by talentlesshack that reduced ink consumption. I reuploaded it and the normal sheet to the site below: www.megaupload.com/ Alex Thx for that re-upload. I love the detail on FFGs sheet but until I edited out the background "noise" and inverted the SM notes at the bottom I could't get motivated to play because I hated how the sheet printed.
  5. Alright, thanks everyone for the help. You folks should be editors for FFG 40k series games. The b&w sheet is the FFG sheet just that...b&w. The ink wasting (SPACE MARINE ABILITIES) portion at the bottom of page one is inverted, colour wise. I am considering eliminating most of the border by enlarging the page past print boundaries. Link: http://www.filedropper.com/deathwatch-character-sheet-ink-savermerged
  6. ***Pending*** ***Require beacon activation*** ***BLACK/WHITE INK SAVING CHARACTER SHEET*** ***Teleportation homing beacon activated--- YES/NO*** Any interest in a black and white pdf? Any idea how to post it for DL (freepdfhosting.com=file is too large for free profile)
  7. Actually, wrapped my grey matter around the attack defense limits (no more than 50) and will interpret that as the limit (say a 5 dodge, 55 attack, and 105 defense; and I didn't work out the dp that's just my example).
  8. Coming back to Anima after a bit of a break and was wondering (after a quick forum search) if the penalty for being unskilled in dodge or parry but using it as a defense could be mitigated? Say, by spending the 2-3 points for a 1 "skill", or whatever the min. To my understanding no where do you have to determine "this is how THIS character defends" and as long as you have points in dodge/parry there would be no neg. if you switched defense (other than a few points from character creation). Thx for your replies in advance.
  9. I can work with that. Thanks for the search string
  10. Although the Deathwatch is the best character sheet of the line so far (I personally like the "basic" block instead of two columns of skills), it is not very printer friendly. I have even started printing mine on cardstock. I am currently lightening the overall page (I am only printing in black and white/ greyscale), as well as, eliminating the border detail. Hopefully FFG will produce a light copy similar to the DH printer friendly one, unless someone else has already done this. P.S.: Not a fan of "fillable" sheets
  11. Prolly the same as you have done in most other games: make several characters. My usual practice is to create just your avareage character (lol, "avarage" in Anima), no ki, magic, psionics, or summoning. Then repeat, making each of the general "basic" character types. I go as far, sometimes, of mock combat with an extra just to see how things work. Also, play the "core" game before any of the toolkit or Gaia rules. As complicated as Anima seems, I enjoy it thoroughly. My wife, whose first actual play in a session, seems to enjoy it too. Just don't do what I did with Rifts way back and get too into the world, too quickly.
  12. MILLANDSON said: Mantis Sine said: I personally (as a GM) prefer sexes to stay the same (pc=player, males def can't play females). No offence intended, but the lack of ability for your players to play opposite sexes to their biological sex does not automatically extend to every other RPG player. I have in fact been told I can play female characters exceptionally well, and most of my players have played opposite sexes without any problem. So please don't use such sweeping statements as "males def can't play females", as that can be proven to be incorrect. Frankly, being restrained to only play a male character by dint of my RL gender would be incredibly dull for me, and would result in me quickly finding another GM who was more open to variety. No offense taken, my house rules is such that I (as GM) don't like the idea and nip any such ideas as "I'll just squeeze these together to get what I want" from my groups, but then again I know the guys people I'm playing with. I really did not intend for that to be interpreted as "I don't think any guy ever should play a female." If it's any consolation I play an all SOB army (for Witch Hunters) for 40k. And sorry for RE-straying of topic.
  13. MILLANDSON said: Logan Ambrose said: Why is "female space marines" such a bad word? From what i have seen this really gets people up in arms. I have yet to see a compelling argument that dose not involve fluf. Is it really worth getting high blood pressure over a fictional setting. All that 40k is is it's fluff. GW intellectual property is what makes 40k 40k. If it's in the fluff, especially when it isn't contradicted at all, then that's how it is in the setting. It has always been stated that there are only male Space Marines and that the Emperor specifically designed the geneseed and implants to work with male genetics and hormones. Therefore, that's how it is. Now, if you want to do it in your game, no one is stopping you, it's not like the GW ninja are going to burst in and gut you for your insolence. But understand that then you are straying from a long, LONG established fact in the 40k setting, and that your game is no longer following the canon. Also, equally, I've not yet seen a compelling argument for female Space Marines at all, as they all revolve around "my girl player doesn't want to play a smelly man" and, essentially "it's sexist, woman should be equal". So why should people agree that there should be female Space Marines if there is no good reason, either in setting or out, to have them? Excuse my military background; but, show me the publication. I personally (as a GM) prefer sexes to stay the same (pc=player, males def can't play females). I know ffg will incorperate a way to get a sister of battle into a killteam, but I'm just saying there is nothing saying it CAN'T be done, as previously stated "out of a 1,000 chapters." And it's just fun, aka: samus, HALO , all those "surprise" females.
  14. Out of a thousand SM chapters how could the gene not have been tried in females. It's not like there is any modification organ for the testicles.
×
×
  • Create New...