Jump to content

Red Bart

Members
  • Content Count

    95
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Red Bart

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Tilburg, Brabant, Netherlands
  1. Probably not a bad rule. Houserules make me itchy though. Once you start you (I) can't stop
  2. It makes sense the way you describe it and it does indeed look like a feature. The fact that heavy weapons also fall under finesse is probably what made it strange to me. Maybe they should have taken that particular weapon training specialization out and made it a separate talent. For all other weapons it kinda makes sense.
  3. I've just upgraded my Dark Heresy to the second edition and am proof building a couple of characters to familiarize myself with the process. When rolling up a guardsman (which I intended to make a heavy weapons guy), I noticed that both the Weapon Training talent and Ballistic Skill characteristic use the Finesse aptitude to advance, which a warrior is unable to get. This seems a bit strange as, in my eyes, a warrior should be the role that will be most accustomed to handling different kinds of weapons and hitting things with ranged weapons. I know it´s still possible for a warrior to get these things, but being more expensive, they will be less likely to do that. Certainly with heavy weapons, which don't require a whole hell of a lot finesse, should the warrior be the role who should be able to get that for the minimum amount of XP. What's your take on this? Is this right?
  4. My google-fu must have failed me, I couldn't find anything That answer clears everything up. Thanks!
  5. In our last game one of the players encountered the Himalaya research encounter card. It states that a monster is spawned (so it isn't an ambush) that should be encountered. The monster that was drawn was a mummy which immediately moves to the pyramids when it spawns. So what should happen in this case? Should you not encounter the monster because it moved to the pyramids? Should you treat the spawn as an ambush instead? Should you first encounter the mummy and then have it move to the pyramids? Or should you just keep the mummy in the Himalayas? Is there anything in the errata mentioned about this?
  6. So there's no rule I missed somewhere; it's just possible to be that unlucky.
  7. From the EH reference guide, page 9, bottom right: If a Monster is spawned or an investigator gains a component while investigators are resolving @ effects, they do not resolve the @ effect on that Monster or component.
  8. Last night I was playing a game of Eldritch Horror where in a particular encounter phase I managed to get the blessed condition. However during the subsequent mythos phase of the same round I had to check for reckoning and immediately lost it again. In Arkham Horror I vaguely remember a rule that you can't lose blessed in the same round you acquire it. I couldn't find any such rule in EH though. I know there's a rule that you don't have to check for reckoning for components that you acquire during reckoning, but I got the blessed condition during the encounter phase. So is it just bad luck having to resolve a reckoning the phase immediately after you acquire the blessed condition, or is there some rule I missed that prevents this?
  9. I also wouldn't limit the number of ships they can have, just the number of ships they can take with them. And there isn't a hard limit, it's just less profitable to have a larger fleet for the same objective. Meanwhile all other ships will be engaged outside of the fleet on money making tasks.
  10. Great material! Being a big Necron fan myself I will definitely use it. As soon as my players are up to the task of course
  11. And to add to what Vandegraffe said: It's probably better to treat an augur test more conceptually than along a fixed pattern (i.e. this many successes will tell you that about a planet). In other words, the more degrees of success in an augur test the more should be revealed about the planet that would help the endeavor. So the one augur test might reveal the hidden base at 3 degrees of success, but the augur test at the other planet might not reveal the hidden base at all because it should be found through roleplaying.
  12. If the players start thinking about the composition of their fleet to maximize their profit (especially when a certain amount of roleplaying is involved in doing this) might not be a bad thing. On the other hand, if it does become a problem you can rule that any ship not engaged in a permanent way (e.g. a transport ship that is ferrying goods from one planet to another, a warship patrolling a subsector, an explorer vessel on permanent detail to chart a star system, etc.) would count towards the achievement penalty. In other words: even if they would leave a ship "at home" it would still incur an achievement penalty because it would still need to be maintained, and because it isn't doing anything profitable to pay for itself. And to update my rule I posted yesterday: instead of -100 per 35SP it would be more fair and more elegant to make the achievement penalty equal to 3x the SP cost.
  13. Your solution sounds good, albeit (as previous posters already commented) a little harsh. At the moment I am thinking about giving just an achievement penalty for each endeavor, to the tune of about -100 achievement points per 35 used SP (other then those used for the group's original vessel). In this way the group will have to work harder to achieve their goals and will earn less bonus PF if they do. This (hopefully) will make them more likely to leave ships at home as soon as they notice that less ships (or just the one) will also be capable of handling their objectives. I haven't tested this out yet so I don't know how this affects the game.
  14. mrobfire said: You know Red Bart, I've seen any number of GMs talk about how they had their players start without their warrant and the hilarity they built around that. I don't think I've ever liked any of the ideas I've seen in that vein until yours. That sounds like it would have been really fun. Mad props. Thanks! It was. Doesn't hurt that I have players with a lot of roleplaying experience under their belts either, so things move along smoothly. And don't forget when the players do enter the vault to retrieve their warrant, tell them: "When you enter the vault you see the place empty and the warrant has already been taken!". *Wait for the disappointed and sour looks from your players* (savor the moment). Then tell them: "Of course, as you well know, the real document is hidden beneath the floor boards of the vault.". Turning the climax into an anti-climax and back into a climax again. Keep them on their toes
  15. My players did something similar. When DH was just out they decided to all play nobles from a house that was just all but wiped out by the Inquisition for dealing in xeno artifacts. Their players were allowed to live and work as acolytes for the inquisition only because they were the ones that reported their own family. Fast forward to my current RT campaign. Lo and behold there is something called the Cold Trade that fits in perfectly with the background they thought up for their DH characters! It didn't take them long to decide that the inquisition didn't manage to kill their entire house, but left one ship alive with the heir to the dynasty on it. So now their DH characters are working with the Inquisition to thwart the plans they make with their RT characters. The RT characters meanwhile are oblivious to the fact that their dynasty had traitors amongst their own ranks.
×
×
  • Create New...