Jump to content

Chopper Greg

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Chopper Greg

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Falcon, Colorado, United States
  1. The problem I have with this, is that it smacks of 'DM cheese' - basically it sounds like the DM is essentially saying "this is the story line and nothing the players do is going to change it". Now, I can see establishing how common a ship hull is, based on how many Ship Points it cost. The higher the SP the less likely that the party will hear that that particular hull type is available ( this is not saying that its free and clear to salvage or that the players will not have to put forth some effort ). The other thing that should be an issue is the Profit Factor of the players party, that is to say the higher the PF, the more likely it is that the party finds out about that a particular hull type could be had for the right amount of effort. Now you might even throw in a classic acquisition test, in a highly populated just to hear a rumor about a hull for sale. Maybe. But is this an issue of fluff being pushed into the game? This kind of bothers me, because it doesn't have to be this way. In the core book, we have an example of the Saber, which was a burned out wreck, that was purchased ( and totally refurbished ) by a RT for his own use - all within his lifetime. The point I am trying to make is that sticking to the fluff, is not only impractical, but impossible, unless you start making a bunch of house rules. What RT party is going to sit around with their thumb up their collective ....., waiting 5 years for their ship to be refurbished with the engines they found/salvaged on the last trip or waiting 3 years to have the destroyed dorsal gun replaced? I'm not saying that repairs and customizations need to take place overnight, but some allowance needs to be given for practical turn around time and the same can be said for custom builds. How would you characterize the mismatch ( or even fix it )?
  2. That is the weirdest bit, we are not talking about some obscure design, the Dauntless is THE light cruiser in the core book others can't help but be compared to. Perhaps because there is little about the Dauntless that makes it stand out, other than perhaps it's space and ship point cost. Personally, by the time I was done reading RT, none of the hulls stood out as being worth taking over any other, with the exception of the example Rogue Trader ship Saber. Sure, it doesn't have the hull integrity or space of the Dauntless, but it's equal or superior to the Dauntless in most other respects ( and 5 SP less as well ). If I was in the Saber and looking to upgrade, I wouldn't even bother with a Dauntless, I would find, beg, or steal the 3 more SP to get a Secutor.
  3. I am having a total brain fart. Please remind me which book the Dauntless is in.
  4. I'm going to quibble a bit with this comment. I originally had some decent details into the construction times of the USS Iowa ( most modern ) with the construction times of the South Dakota class and USS North Carolina ( which was the first battleship built by the US after the Washington Naval Treaty and subsequent London Naval Treaty went in to effect ), but my computer had a brain fart and I lost everything, so you are getting the condensed version. The actual construction and outfitting of the USS North Carolina, only took 3.5 years, and was plagued with multiple problems: 1) The shipyard lacked men trained in BB construction ( in fact a lack of men in general as the US was still coming out of the Great Depression ). 2) Shortage of steel, because of labor problems. Despite the issues with the construction of the North Carolina class, the USS North Carolina was completed by April 1941, and as such was not built under war conditions. The USS South Dakota of the South Dakota class, was built and outfitted in a little under 3 years. Actually built in 2 years it launched in June '41, it's outfitting was plagued by the attack on Pearl Harbor so the subsequent man power disruption and the need to outfit it as a flagship, stretched outfitting out almost a full year. The SoDak was also plagued by the need to shrink and re-arrange equipment originally designed for the North Carolina class. I would qualify the SoDak as built not under 'war conditions', but pre-war urgency, materials are relatively plentiful, and there was a moderate pool of men with some training in BB construction. The USS Alabama ( a non-flagship sister to the SoDak ), only took about 2.5 years, laid down in Feb 1940, and commissioned in Aug '42, I would qualify her as being built under full prewar emergency. In a nut shell, the USS Iowa was built and out fitted for duty in 2.5 years ( including a redesign of her turrets after construction had already started ), for a class that was larger than the SoDak class, the last ~2/3rds of that was under actual war conditions, but by this time, the US had already built 6 BBs' and so while there was some material shortage, there was a pool of personal that was well trained. So, while I will grant that under war conditions, build times can be shrunk, it does not take a significant fraction of a mans lifetime, even under non-wartime conditions. The USS Lexington was laid down as a battlecruiser in Jan 1921, construction was stopped while she was redesigned as a aircraft carrier, parts of the ship rebuilt and the ship finished and commissioned Dec 1927 - 7 years total for what stands out as a very unusual construction job. Even at the height of the Great Depression, when there was a major slow down due to the economic conditions there were several ships built but even then, 3-4 years, saw a ship built and on duty ( the USS Yorktown, laid down in 1934 and was commissioned in 1937 ), and that is less than 1/10th the lifetime of your average man at that time. The USS Ronald Reagan ( a Nimitz class CVN, with twice the displacement of a WW2 Iowa class BB ), only took 5 years to build, and that was not under war emergency conditions. Heck even the Ford class CVN, is only expected to take 7 years, and they are developing cutting edge tech for it. Compare that with the 100 year construction time frame for a man that would live ~300 years, in RT, and the scale is way out of sync.
  5. Correct me if I'm wrong ( and I might be since I haven't read much 40K fiction ), but isn't Priests of Mars a single book rather than a series?
  6. Is there a reason why it shouldn't apply to a Battlesuit? As for what kind of player I am, you are again making a false assumption. I simply play by the rules given, and if GW is going to give us a model then they also need to give us ALL the rules that apply to that model. By strict interpretation of the rules that apply to a MC, Riptides can be a multi model unit, and so an IC can join, and if GW didn't want an IC joining it, then they should of added phrase to the effect that 'Riptides may not be joined by an IC' - just 8-9 word phrase and yet at no point in 6th Ed. did the Tau FAQ / Errata ever say that the Riptide couldn't be joined by an IC. So to many people this is understood to be permission. As far as I was concerned I really didn't care one way or the other, other than the fact that I had to keep in mind that any given opponent may interpret that rule different than other opponents.
  7. Ok, I'll grant that, but I would also point out that it says 'unless specified in the entry'. I am fairly sure, it's talking about the LC Bay entries rather than ship entries, but it could allow for a custom built landing bay or ship build ( or rebuild ), could it not???
  8. Now I'm curious. Where does it say in the rules that bays have to go into port/stbrd mounts? I grant that it's traditional that they go there, and that putting them into a dorsal mount doesn't make sense as that is generally viewed as a 'turret' ( and few Imp ships have keel slots ), but I don't ever recall seeing a rule that said that the bays must be placed in the port and starboard mounts.
  9. Ok, so you are talking about 5th Ed. The previous Tau codex ( which came out in 2005 and makes it 4th Ed ), doesn't limit a drone controller to 2 or less drones. What it does do, is limit how many drones that can be taken as personal wargear. What the 4th Ed codex clearly does, is give the Firesight Marksman 3 drones that are controlled by a single drone controller, without giving the Firesight Marksman any special rule to allow his drone controller to control more than 1 or 2 drones. Between this is and the words "between the operator and a number of drones" in the Drone Controller entry, it demonstrates that there was no limit, other than what was allowed as drones taken as per the FO and drones taken as personal wargear rules. So you have ~9 years of permission, vs. the ~4 years between the time when the Tau first came out in 2001 and when the previous Tau codex came out ( more than double the time ). So yes, the Drone Controller being able to control more than 2 drones, has been around quite a while now and is not limited to the newest Tau codex or 6th Ed. As for the Riptide being joined by an IC, I really didn't see that as any different than a Necron IC joining a Canoptek Spyder unit, because the Spyder unit could consist of more than 1 model, and the rule was against a single MC model - I didn't have an issue with it either way. As it stands now, all that the ruling in 7th Ed did was solve one issue and cause a new one in it's place, because now we also have an IC that is also a MC, from the Farsight Enclaves.
  10. Part of the problem may come from the fact that I first started playing 40K, about the time when the previous Tau codex came out ( 4th Ed rules? ), and as such did not have any preconceived idea of how Tau should be played. That was true in the previous codex, but not in the current codex. As I am loathed to put my self in a position where GW could nail me for copyright issues with the newest rules ( I doubt that they would do anything about the last rule set ), you will please pardon me not typing out the entirety of the Drone Controller entry in the current codex, but paraphrasing instead. Pg. 68 is where it spells out that all the drones in a unit with a drone controller are under control of the drone controller, and use the BS of the person with the drone controller and that in the case of multiple drone controllers in a unit, they are used by the controller with the highest BS that can be used ( which is probably why you see a discrepancy - the drones themselves only have a BS of 2, but because of the drone controller they use the BS of the person with a drone controller ). In the case of the Sniper Teams, there is no Targeting Array ( I don't see them listed any more ), the Marksman has a Drone Controller, a BS 5, a Markerlight, and a pistol. As for where it says that sniper drones are not removed if the Firesight Marksman is killed, I refer you to the Sniper Drone Team entry, on Pg 46 of the same codex, more specifically the last half of the last paragraph. The Tau FAQ for 6th Ed, actually eliminated a few of the things that markerlights could do in 5th Ed, but without adding any new units, they brought most of the rules inline for what they did with the newest Tau codex. Now, a Shield Drone, confers a 4+ Invulnerable Save. I grant that it might be obscure, but I am still of the belief that the phrase ".... a number of drones", signifies more than just 1 or 2, otherwise they would have specifically said "1 or 2" or "only up to 2 drones". As for a lack of rules, we all know that GW works on the premise that unless something shows it's self to be an actual game balance problem, they don't normally rule it. One example might be when the new Tau codex originally came out, there was absolutely no prohibition against a Crisis Suit taking 2 identical weapons, just a point cost for taking a single weapon and a point cost for taking a twin-linked weapon of the same type, but there was no rule stating that you could take 2 of the same type either. This lead to purist claiming that you could not take two single weapons of the same type, it either had to be just one weapon or a twin-linked weapon. This lead to some really nasty debates, until GW FAQed that there was nothing wrong with Crisis Suits taking two single weapons of the same type. As I said before, there should be a practical limit to the number of drones that can be controlled in the RPG, but I also believe that the practical limit has already been set in the TCG, in that there is no real advantage to taking drones without taking at least 1 level of Drone Handler, and even then you are limited to controlling the number of drones equal to your INT bonus, and as such tends to be self limiting.
  11. How about an aimed shot to a battlesuit causes an energy or mechanical feedback within the suit that causes said damage to the actual part of the pilot? It's certainly plausible and is one way to deal with the issue. Well off the top of my head the old codex Tau Empire states that if the model with the drone controller dies, the drones attatched to him are immediately removed. By your logic the drones should immediately pass to another model with a controller in the same group. I don't think its been erratad because most people aren't playing grammar nazi with the codex to boost a flak unit into a body guard of doom I'll concede you can read the rule that way, but I think you'd run out of opponents pretty quickly. As for implied, I would argue it is implied in the use of the wording 'one or two' if it was intended to be otherwise I would expect the rule to read 'one or more' or to see some evidence of rules for assuming control of stray drones, or drones lost in a unit containing multiple drone controllers. Neither exist. Cali, if you don't mind, I'll break your post into sections and answer each in turn. Incorrect. The limit is how many that can be taken as Wargear and since those drones are taken as Wargear for a specific model, they are treated as any other piece of Wargear and must be removed from the table when the model dies. But there is the further issue in that those drones that are taken from the heavy support slot ( sniper team ), do not get removed when the model with the drone controller dies - they just revert to their basic stats. Drones that are taken with vehicles are only removed, if they have not dismounted from the vehicle when the vehicle gets destroyed - if they have dismounted before their vehicle is destroyed, then they are treated as seperate drone squadron. You would be disappointed in what actually happens then. Most players don't even bat an eye. The only time I really have an issue, with someone raising a fuss, is when they don't expect it, and then I hand them the codex and ask them to point out the rule that prohibits a commander with a drone controller from joining a drone squadron and controlling them. But the wording "one or two" in the Tau codex is only used in connection with the number of drones specifically taken from the Wargear List. " A model with a drone controller must take one or two Gun, Marker, or Shield Drones, in any combination from the Wargear List ". If the drone controller was only allowed to control one or two drones, it would say so, but it doesn't. As I have quoted before the entry doesn't specify controlling just 1 or 2 drones, but leaves it open with: "..... a number of drones. " So we have had 2 different Tau codices in a row, that support drone controllers being able to control more than just 1 or 2 drones, and the newest one goes out of it way to say it, and we have zero errata to limit a drone controllers to just 1 or 2 drones.
  12. I do agree than there should be a practical limit, but the original issue was that there should only be a limit of 2 drones because that was what the Tau Codex rules say all a Drone Controller could control in the 40K tabletop game. My objection, is that based on the last 2 Tau Codexes - not only is there is no such rule listed, but documentation that a controller can control more than 2 drones, so there is no reason to implement an '2 drone limit rule' in the 40K RPG. Now, in Drone Handler under Other Requirements ( in the Tau supplement ), it specifically states ".....must display an aptitude for technology and undergo the proper training to guide and coordinate the actions of one or more drones...", in addition, under New Talent: Swarm Protocols, it states "Whenever this Explorer takes and Action that that gives directions to one or more of his drones, he may have it affect a number of drones up to his Intelligence Bonus instead." In the Armory section there is documentation that "A character with a drone controller is typically assigned one or more drones....." So, we not only have supplement confirmation that a Drone Controller can control more than 1 or 2 drones, we also have a practical limit as to how many drones can be controlled by any single character, and any excess should should revert to their base stat levels and only have the options listed in Programed Intelligence, under the Drones listing - and perhaps the Tau with drones in excess of this practical limit should loose the For The Greater Good trait unless the excess drones were authorized by a superior for the purpose of a specific mission or as replacements for expected losses.
  13. Note, that the old codex does not limit the number of drones controlled by any given controller - it only limits how many drones can be taken as Wargear before any further drones have to come out of a different part of the 40K tabletop FO. There is nothing that prohibits a Commander from taking 2 drones as wargear, and then joining and controlling a Drone Squadron of 8 drones. That is very clearly not how the rule is intended, and deep down you know that. Now go to your room Based on what data? No place in the last two Tau Codex, has it ever said or even implied that a Drone Controller is limited to controlling just 1 or 2 drones, nor has any of the FAQ or errata ever said that the controller is limited to controlling just 1 or 2 drones.
  14. Since when was that the limit for the tabletop game? A single Firesight Marksman can control up to 9 sniper drones, any IC with a drone controller can join and control an entire Drone Squadron of up to 12 Drones ( and that is not counting 2 additional Drones that can come with the IC ). Since like, forever... If a farsight marksman can do something different he is either the exception to the rule, or the rule was only recently changed with last years codex. Every other iteration since 3rd Ed states 2 per controller. Since like, not forever. I have a copy of the previous codex ( 2005 ): Note, that the old codex does not limit the number of drones controlled by any given controller - it only limits how many drones can be taken as Wargear before any further drones have to come out of a different part of the 40K tabletop FO. There is nothing that prohibits a Commander from taking 2 drones as wargear, and then joining and controlling a Drone Squadron of 8 drones. The new codex, gives further clarity, in that it states: So if you have a Commander and 2 Bodyguards that is a total of 6 Drones controlled by 1 controller. In the case of Commander Farsight, who can take up to 7 Bodyguards, that is a total of 14 Drones that can be controlled by 1 Drone Controller ( not that I would put all of my eggs in one basket ).
  • Create New...