Jump to content

Evilref

Members
  • Content Count

    162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Evilref

  1. I have six players in my group and, while dice won't be a problem because two players have their own copies of the core box, I'm concerned that cards and their usage might be an issue. The two players with their own copies of the core will be using the core material for their characters. This is so we don't end up having to keep track of every card and whose set it came from. I have, or am waiting for delivery of, one of everything but the player's vault, GM's vault. My main concerns at present are with condition cards, wound cards etc. For those people who have run with a larger group size, what were the things you really needed more of? And is it better to get a player's vault+gm's vault (with updated errata but less dice) or another copy of the core rules.
  2. talsine said: If they all have the same skill list and only vary by demeanor with chapter choice, i'll put my copy back on the shelf and never touch it again My players Kill-team differ from eachother in all sorts of ways...
  3. Atheosis said: Bottom line is that this is a public forum. Adam has a right to post his opinions on these boards. He has consistently been polite and courteous in doing so. If you disagree with him so be it. Voice those disagreements. Trying to invalidate or marginalize his views because they aren't in keeping with your own is a different matter. I have voiced those disagreements. And many other people have. And Adam has on numerous occasions ignored those points or paid lip service to them in favour of asserting his same opinion over and over. What's more, as it doesn't seem to be clear, I wasn't invalidating or maginalising his views (I am, however, I'm entirely free to do so if I wanted to, just as he's done to other people). I was pointing out to Kage, using the examples, why several posters have thought Adam was attacking the game and not just the adventure (because he has used language that would easily lead one to think so).
  4. Kage, when even the most cursory glance back through Adam France's posts shows him being negative about the game. Repeatedly so, and continually attacking its design, art and direction maybe, just maybe that's why people think he's criticising the game as much as the adventures. After a while all of that negativity starts to bleed together. There's been plenty of ignoring of posts and line drawing from both 'sides' on this one. Many people have pointed out their persona play experiences with the adventure(s) and been ignored or dismissed in favour of yet another cheap shot at it. As such, I'm entitely unsurprised that some posters have gotten tired of having something they personally liked diminished (and in at least one case, their own gaming preferences and style dismissed/condescended to). These are just a sample. Yes they're taken out of context etc. etc. But they're not taken out of the context of continual negativity. Adam France said: I shall check DW out when it is released before buying, but I suspect that as with Ascension I will not be buying this one. Adam France said: I'm getting worried DW is written pretty much just with combat in mind. That's a bad thing, if true, imo. Adam France said: I am very pessimistic about this game. Adam France said: The adventure is, as I previously suspected, a railroad, where the party moves from one combat to another, with perhaps some chatting to PDF forces to compell or convince them to help in future combats. Really, exactly what I feared DW adventures would be, and we were assured they would not be. Adam France said: But my main worry is that it just doesn't sound exciting to me. Another nail in the coffin of my interest in the game tbh.
  5. Adam France said: No the samples aren't all adventures, but as the only two adventures yet seen I'm taking it as a distinct trend that FFG seem to view this as a game pretty much solely about combat. I'm just going on what I've yet seen. I guess you could have used the Inquisitor game as a more rounded game, indeed I know some people did so, however the game was not written with that in mind. I'm getting worried DW is written pretty much just with combat in mind. That's a bad thing, if true, imo. You skipped the main point of my post in order to just make your position again. There have been numerous posts by people taking the time to point out contradictory experience, ideas and options or simply better informed testimony and assertions. These are all ignored or paid lip service by you as a route to saying the same thing again. It's evidently pointless trying to discuss this with you as, based on the evidence, you've no interest in discussing this and just want to make your point over..and over...and over.
  6. Adam France said: The thing is if everything is just about combat it will be... boring. It really will. For some reason the answer to this seems to be getting ignored (as it's been said many times but you keep repeating yourself), so I'll try saying it one more time. It's up to each group whether they want their game to be all about combat...or not. I've pointed out examples of non-combat missions. Other people have as well. At this point it's feeling as if you're just attacking the game for the sake of it. The sample adventure is not 'all adventures'. It's your game, the book's the toolbox, it's up to you what you make with it.
  7. Firstly, having run a lot of Deathwatch obligatory 'it is a roleplaying game' 'you get out what you put in' and 'there's as much combat as you want'. The two sample adventures speak to the strength of the game and also demonstrate new 'things' you don't get in Rogue Trader or Dark Heresy. Personally, if I'd received a heavy investigation or political mission I'd have been pointing out that it didn't highlight the 'new' or the 'awesome' in Deathwatch (and it is very, very awesome). If we consider the three games as follows: Dark Heresy: Investigation Rogue Trader: Exploration Deathwatch: Action This outlines the, I feel, core values of each game. It doesn't preclude other things (certainly my campaign features plenty of action in DH and Exploration in Deathwatch for example) but it does speak to a fundamental direction and theme for the games. As such, having combat related sample adventures is entirely apt. The fact that Adam doesn't want to see 'a lot' of combat doesn't make them bad adventures (subjectively, they're not). They're just not what he personally wants. The game isn't catering for one person though, it's catering for its core values and customer base. Not everyone who likes Dark Heresy will want to play a Deathwatch game. Just as people who love Deathwatch could be uninterested in Dark Heresy. That doesn't make either 'bad' it is a matter of personal taste. In terms of showing what else Deathwatch can do, taking some things (non-NDA ones) from my game: Bodyguard an Inquisitor and an AM Magos, one to negotiate with Xenos, the other while doing an archeotech dig. Board a derelict Xenos spacecraft and deal with the warp-ghost remains of its crew. Get involved in Crusade politics and machinations. Expose an IG General who was harbouring radical elements. Reinforce a cut off IG regiment until more help can arrive. This involving extensive morale boosting and included lots of 'Why does the Uplifting Primer say X's weapons are weak when Corporal Janek's head was turned into mush by one' There's just a handful. Not all of them involve combat but most do. Likewise most of the investigations my group's Inquisitor undertakes involve a fight somewhere down the line.
  8. Nojo509 said: I don't want to look, in case a certain cheater wants to GM it. Could it work as a one shot for players who haven't played Final Sanction? Some people in my group have played FS, others have not. Absolutely. You might want to consider how much background to give for it in terms of the NPCs and set up but it definitely stands on its own (while at the same time really flowing well from Final Sanction). Owen did a great job with it.
  9. Mrakvampire said: Can Vindicare Assassin kill squad of tactical space marines in fluff? In Ascension he can, cause he is immune to all physical attacks cause he have HUGE dodge rating and can dodge all attacks, even invisible ones. He's not immune to all physical attacks. You're being disingenous here. Mrakvampire said: Ok, I'll find my 5ed Imperial Guard codex. Imperial Primaris Psyker... Oh, no, HE's NOT THAT POWERFULL. hahaha... hahaha... ? Really? Why are you trying to drag this down to the playground? Mrakvampire said: Warhammer 40000 has fluff. Has canon. And Ascension differs from canon greatly in my opinion, cause PCs become super-heroes a-la superman. And you're entitled to your opinion, but as I said before, there are no objective scales for balance, it's a personal decision. I also pointed out a solution for your personal game which you seem to have ignored.
  10. Mrakvampire said: Vindicare Assassin can easily have Agility 70 (40 start + 20 dark heresy + 10 ascension). So he has 100% chance (Dodge +20, Unnatural Agility x2) to evade every attack that hits him. Is it in line with tabletop game? It is broken, totally broken. I can't imagine a human that can do such things. It is totally out of my imagination and totally out of Warhammer 40000 canon, that I know. Psykers... Psyker with unnatural willpower x3... With Psy Rating 10+... It's ridicilous. Can you imagine his power? Inquisitor that was 'made from' Imperial Psyker gains unnatural willpower x2 in the beginning of this game... Guardsman... Guardsman gains nothing. Hahaha. Playtesters, where are you? Firstly, Ascension is not balanced with Dark Heresy, it's balanced with itself (and perhaps Deathwatch). Characters are therefore acting at a far higher power level than the core rulebook. Secondly DH has never been 'balanced' in a combat sense. An Adept is in no way balanced with a Guardsman or an Assassin. Likewise the Primaris Psyker can do far more in a fight than the Sage can. The Vindicaire harder to kill than a storm trooper. This reflects the setting. and note, the vindicare doesn't get to dodge every attack. There are many ways to take down a templum assassin. Primaris Psykers are in line with the fluff. They're supposed to be extremely powerful. Likewise Vindicaire asassins, or the indomitable willpower of an Inquisitor. Moreover, if you don't like it for your own personal game it's an incredibly easy change, remove the Unnatural stat from players. However just because it doesn't work for you does not mean it's 'broken'. There's no objective set of scales you can determine game balance on.
  11. LeBlanc13 said: I have written proof too. I've got an entire current edition that doesn't say anywhere that female marines don't exist. The absence of something doesn't prove its existence. That's a fundamental point of both logic and science.
  12. LeBlanc13 said: By compendium, did you mean the current rulebook? A previous edition doesn't work for me. GW changes canon all the time in new editions of the game and allows the novels to run rampant with changing "The True" of what everyone knows. Look, you can shift the goalposts and set the terms of your argument however you like. If you want to say that your game can have female Space Marines then, as previously said many times, it's your game, you can do what you want with it. As far as official game canon is concerned, however, no, there are no female Space Marines. There has not been anything published to say there are. There have been many books published to say there aren't. This subject has been dredged up thousands of times over the years, I'm sure it will continue to be dredged up. The absence of something being explicitely said in the 5th edition Codex doesn't mean the position's changed and they're retroactively existant in the Imperium.
  13. LeBlanc13 said: Can you point to the exact text in the codex or rulebook that states marines can't be female? I'd prefer not to just take your word for it. Warhammer 40,000 Compendium, page 9 'They must be male because zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types...' It's also in White Dwarf 249 and a few other places over the years. Many people in the thread have suggested ways in which a female character can work alongside a Deathwatch Kill Team (Inquisitor, Assassin etc.). Likewise suggestions have been made on ways to just ignore it for your game. Sure, you're not going to be following the canon setting, but it's your game.
  14. Superscope said: Hello people online, I'm after some advice on getting into the Deathwatch/Dark herasy/Rogue Trader RPG and i would like some advice if that's ok. What type of system does this game use. D20,D6, etc? How are rolls done in this game with skill/attack checks? The game uses the 40k Roleplaying Game system. It's the same core system as that used in Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader. All checks in the game are done using percentile dice. The baseline is assumed to be 'challenging' with modifiers to the role based on how easy/hard it is compared to that and what equipment'/circumstances the character has to affect it (e.g. putting someone's feet in a bucket of water while firing up the electrical generator makes interrogation somewhat easier). Superscope said: Are miniures used at all in this game? (Hope so, seriously would love to craft up a set of SM devestators as my main hero) Miniatures are not needed but you can certainly use them if you want to. Superscope said: How long does it take to get people started into this game? (tried to get people started into D&D one night, took bloody hours and i did it wrong) Depends on the people. Superscope said: How does a charater sheet for Deathwatch/Dark herasy/Rogue Trader RPG look like? Are they different in each game? Each game has a similar but different character sheet. You can see some examples here: fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/dark-heresy/pdf/dh-charsheet-light.pdf fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/rogue-trader/support/PDF/Rogue%20Trader%20Character%20Sheet%20(web%20quality).pdf
  15. Drais said: I have been entertaining this idea for a campaign involvong all three games. Each player could, if they chose, play three characters, an Inquistor or Cadre member, a Rogue Trader or Retinue member, and a Adeptus Astartes. Think of the possiblities, hardcore investigation and roleplaying, space combat and Xenos smashing! It would be alot of work but it could be awesome. You could run it an adventure at a time. It is a lot of work. And yes, it is awesome.
  16. MILLANDSON said: You are talking as though that was the only thing I'm interested in, when it was just an example of something I enjoy that I won't be able to do in Deathwatch. Space Marines kill stuff, that's kind of their job, their "shtick". If you can tell me what else they do in Deathwatch, and how I can have the same sort of investigation and social/political adventures as I can GM with Dark Heresy + Rogue Trader, then my view on "roleplaying" as a Space Marine might be changed. I mean, half of the alluded to classes just sound like "kills things wearing a jump-pack", "kills things by shooting", stuff like that. I just can't see the supposed flexability you and other playtesters for Deathwatch have alluded to in the information we've been given at present. I'm entirely willing to be proven wrong on this, and I hope I am, but I just don't see it. But then, I've always found Space Marines to be one of the more boring/overused parts of the 40k setting. I'm hoping the game will pull some sort of amazing god-like feat off and make me like it, but at present, I'm sceptical about it. My disappointment, coming from you, was the kneejerk 'don't see how this game can be anything other than lots of combat'. I guess I was just expecting a more reasoned opinion from you. Your followup post is better developed, and of course one of the great things about the 40k RPGs from FFG is that you can take what you wantfrom them. Conspiracy and Horror tie best to DH, Exploration and the mystery of the unknown lean more towards RT etc. Obviously, if you really dislike Space Marines then Deathwatch is probably not for you (though the background material and ideas in the likes of the Jericho Reach are top notch). To say it's nothing but combat, however, is to do the book and the writers a disservice. It's not a one-dimensional game at all.
  17. Savage said: Before playtesting started, I was quite worried about the 'sameness' and lack of individuality that would plague Space Marines. This proved to be an unfounded worry though; FFG have pulled this one off wonderfully, they have created a magnificent game, that has far exceeded my expectations. My group went into it with much the same concerns. And I think it's understandable for anyone to do so given the 'sameness' of 50 tactical marines on a battlefield. Instead, from the first session of testing my group were commenting on how different their characters felt from one another. That's something that's only developed throughout the process. The book allows for various styles of play and campaigns and really supports the idea of roleplaying a Marine and them feeling suitably 'awesome' (as my group kept saying, one common comment was 'I feel like a Space Marine'. The Jericho Reach is also inspired, there's some very clever things going on there for GMs to grab hold of and run all manner of campaigns with.
  18. MILLANDSON said: Assuming the default NDA from FFG, until more is mentioned, no one will be able to talk about it, other than "I'm playtesting it". At least, that's how it is for the DH and RT playtesters. Actually we can say a little more than that. General views (I like it a lot), countering kneejerk derogatory opinions (it's involves a lot more than combat) etc.
  19. MILLANDSON said: I have to agree, I honestly don't see how this game can be anything other than lots of combat, and lots of combat by itself is dull. It's not like you'll be able to do undercover investigations or anything like that. The above is entirely contradicted by the material in the book. There is plenty of 'stuff' to facilitate and support roleplaying a Space Marine. As for not doing undercover investigations, well I guess that just leaves a hundred other options on roleplaying. If the above were true, then Rogue Trader must be about nothing but combat either, because that's not a game about undercover investigation.
  20. The Hobo Hunter said: Another question I feel has been unanswered: How much leeway is there for two characters of identical career to be different to each other? More, I think, than with core DH characters. Obviously there's going to be skill/talent overlap, but if they each take a different transition package and <other stuff> then they can certainly have different abilities other than their skills and talents. Albeit not the same Ascended careers, but my game has a Stormtrooper and a Crusader. Both started out as Guardsmen. They're very different to eachother, there's overlaps for sure but in no way do they feel the same in play.
  21. The Hobo Hunter said: Evilref said: Just as how a DH character still has plenty to spend their XP on when they max out at level 8, so do Ascension characters not lack for options on where to spend their XP. Finally, the first sigh of relief I can utter about Dark Heresy: Ascension. Different Ascended careers have different areas of emphasis. There's overlaps but no career is an exact copy of another. Plus there are other things aside from the advance schemes to differentiate careers.
  22. Malefic Sorcerer said: Now that you make me think of it ... no, I wasn't. Honestly, what's wrong with you ? I find you picking on me at every opportunity. A forum is supposed to be a place where everyone can express concerns and thoughts freely, perhaps you missed that part ? Or you have insights us mere mortals can't even begin to comprehend ... I've done so twice and certainly not taken up every opportunity. Your post here stated that (in your opinion) the Influence system wouldn't be used by 'good' roleplayers and would hamper weak ones. It breaks down like this: If my group use the Influence system (which they do) then from your biased statement of opinion, they have to be weak roleplayers and, moreover, are using the system as a crutch to their roleplaying. You've already dismissed the possibility of 'good' roleplayers using it after all. The Hobo Hunter said: I ask because I'm finding it very difficult to come up with, in my mind, enough 'stuff' for throne agents to buy their way through their next 8 ranks without resorting to exhausting their throne agent advances and reverting to characteristic advances to make up the XP (see Rogue Trader) or just going back to their acolyte advances (can we even do that?) and buy from the remaining ~30,000XP there (in which case why buy Ascension?) Is there another option I've missed somewhere which clarifies this? New Talents, Influence Talents, Mastered Skills (no class can take every mastered skill and there's enough differentiation to keep the characters feeling different, even if you assume a character is solely their characteristics, talents and skills), existing skills, existing talents (more sound constitution for example) and characteristic advances. Just as how a DH character still has plenty to spend their XP on when they max out at level 8, so do Ascension characters not lack for options on where to spend their XP. At the higher ranks, it's less about the what and more about the how. Or, to be more specific, Influence Talents can be a really big part of the game, The Drive Skill rarely creates a plot, Acolyte Network certainly can (and is, given my group's Inquisitor is aiming for a spymaster approach and is working on building up his network at the moment).
  23. Malefic Sorcerer said: Sorry dear FFG folks ... but Common Lore Mastery, Scholastic Mastery, Forbidden Lore Mastery and especially Tech Lore Mastery just seem entirely hilarious to me. The so-called simplifications offered by the Mastered Skills just reek of munchkinism. Some of the Paragon Talents actually seem to make sense, so I might be pleasantly surprised by that chapter in Ascension yet, wouldn't count on it though. As for Influence traits ... smells to much like Rogue Trader's acquisition system to me. Personally I don't like game mechanics to represent things (resources in this case) which are and should be gained via roleplay first and foremost. From my personal experience I am inclined to say systems like that tend to cut down on the roleplay of 'weaker' roleplayers even more, while good roleplayers can't be bothered with them. You missed out quite a few rhetorical fallacies, were you trying for the complete set?
  24. Katsue said: Evilref said: I can confirm that there is no 'know stuff' skill in the book. Going by the preview, it would seem that there are three. Personally, I'm fine with that. My Death Cult Assassin will have Common Lore (Imperial Creed), Common Lore (Underworld) and Scholastic Lore (Imperial Creed), whereas the Interrogator will have Common Lore Mastery, Scholastic Lore Mastery and Forbidden Lore Mastery. Contrariwise, I'll probably have Athletic Mastery with a speciality in Dodge, wherehas he'll have Dodge+10. I didn't say that there weren't any Mastered Skills for the knowledge skills. My post was addressing the assertion that there was a single 'know stuff' skill and that this was dumbing down the game.
  25. MILLANDSON said: Seeing as there will almost certainly be no such skill, and more likely be Mastered Skills based on specific areas (such as one covering all the common knowledge skills related to.... say, The Imperium (which would include Common Lores: Imperium, Imperial Creed, Administratum, Ecclesiarchy, Imperial Guard, Adeptus Arbites and Machine Cult), the question is moot. I can confirm that there is no 'know stuff' skill in the book.
×
×
  • Create New...