Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Aethilgar

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Virginia, United States
  1. Leave the hands and arms on until after their current mission. If, in the course of their current mission, they fail to die for the Emperor; then a punishment ensues. Consider, this is not just simple theft... they broke into and stole sanctified items from a member of the Ecclesiarchy... from the Church of the God-Emperor... from, by extension, the God-Emperor, Himself. They have, in fact, broken faith in a very real sense. For the Sister, should she fail to die for the Emperor of her own accord; a light punishment could be her being remanded to the Sisters Repenta (Sister Oblatia alt-advance?) and on the harsh side there is always the possible future of being attached to a penitent engine (turn in your character sheet, make a new character). Both are more flavorful than simply losing a hand to be replaced by bionics or killing her. The other person involved? Much would depend on their position and class, I'd imagine. Anything from reparations (for the theft and loss of near unique items? Ouch.) to purification by flame. Frankly, why would an Inquisitor keep around acolytes that freely do such things? It reflects poorly on the Inquisitor, for one and they can't ever be fully trusted, for two. Perhaps they would be useful to the Inquisitor as 'throw-a-ways'. To be given missions that they didn't wish to send his more valuable teams on. "If they succeed, good. And if they fail, also good." Such an Inquisitor, however, must always be watchful of these acolytes. They could venture further off the path of righteousness at any time. Oh! And how about some corruption points for them as a bit of forewarning, eh?
  2. Yikes, I should have read all the posts before joining in... I had no idea this was a 'which would win in a battle; the Enterprise, the Galactica, or a Star Destroyer' thread. There are too many factors involved in the 'which is better; gun or great weapon' argument. Range, proficiency, weapon type, etc. But here's a simple test to determine which is 'better'.... ... How many modern armies are using melee weapons today of any sort let alone 'great weapons'? (a Star Destroyer...)
  3. bogi_khaosa said: I've been thinking that Great Weapons, especially once mono'd, are ridiculously too powerful. 2d10 + SB is more damage than a Heavy Flamer; much more than a Power Sword. Their only downsides are weight and the fact that you can't parry with them. So, I've been thinking about how to better represent the "HUGE BUT CLUMSY weapon." My idea is to represent that you need to use big, powerful, easy to avoid swings. I suggest that 1) attacks with a Great Weapon can only be made every other Round (since you need to spin the thing around), 2) cannot be used in conjunction with Swift and Lightning Attack (same reason), and 3) opponents get a +10 to Dodge them. What do you think? A single parry would then wreck a 'great weapon' and nobody would ever use one. In fact, under this interpretation, so poor would this weapon be that they simply would not have evolved. Besides; historically speaking, many 'great weapons' were not clumsy at all. Larger than non-great weapons, yes, but were they as 'huge and clumsy' as you suggest they simply would not exist.
  4. Brother Praetus said: Aethilgar said: .... and what would happen if this psyker's foe parried his melee attack with a power weapon? Assuming that you, the GM, count 'unarmed combat' as melee (and I don't see any reason why you would not), a successful parry against this psyker with a powerfield equipped weapon would mean a 75% chance that the psyker's 'weapon' is destroyed. Lop off a hand or two and ask your psyker to come up with a new way to stack damage. Ummm... Hammerhands means Biomancy. Biomancy should also mean Regenerate. Once all wounds are recovered, lost limbs and organs begin to grow back. Of course, parrying such an attack with a power weapon is still a good way to still slow down the psyker version of Evander Holyfield... Though, the more powers involved, the harder it gets to activate them. -=Brother Praetus=- Quite true; if the psyker has regenerate he will be able to grow back a lost hand or arm 'eventually'. Regen is a full round action that must first heal wounds taken at d5 per round. After all wounds are healed, then the psyker may begin to regrow lost limbs at an unstated rate. I imagine that it is not fast. Keep in mind that there are/could be additional penalties both 'sudden limb loss' (see critical damage) and for having lost a limb. It would not be out of the question for a GM to inflict a stunned state, give levels of fatigue, or cause bleeding. Either way, a psyker stacking hammerhand and burning fist could be completely removed from combat (or even killed, were the GM in a bloodthirsty mood) by a single parry and would likely give the psyker pause in the future.
  5. .... and what would happen if this psyker's foe parried his melee attack with a power weapon? Assuming that you, the GM, count 'unarmed combat' as melee (and I don't see any reason why you would not), a successful parry against this psyker with a powerfield equipped weapon would mean a 75% chance that the psyker's 'weapon' is destroyed. Lop off a hand or two and ask your psyker to come up with a new way to stack damage.
  6. You have all the right answers here; peat fires and distilled water. Stills can be fairly low tech and created using a wide variety of materials. In fact, 'solar stills' can be created using extremely primitive materials. Look up 'Still' in wikipedia and you'll get some very good information and a few diagrams on their construction.
  7. Pneumonica said: And yet, that isn't what we're describing at all. Parrying an attack is preventing an attack. You might as well replace the entire Parry mechanic with the Grappling rules. You can't "grapple" with a stick, and yet you can use a stick to move the weapon in another direction before it can fire. This is especially important for weapons or character abilities that offer bonuses to parry attacks. Also, if you've successfully grabbed someone's firearm, there are few reasons why you should release control over that weapon. The proposed rules change is an extremely simple rule that's easily implemented, maps well to reality and canon, and unlike using Grapple to simulate a Parry this rules set actually works (you can Parry ranged attacks if you are engaged with the person making the ranged attack at the time the attack is made). There, no need to uselessly overcomplicate gameplay or utilize rules sets that have nothing to do with what's actually being done. Parrying, in game terms, is a Reaction... pending traits, it's the single defensive action that is taken AFTER an attack roll succeeds to either dodge or parry. While I understand that this 'firearm parry' is a house rule and shouldn't be discussed in this forum; I would ask if you consider it to be an action or a reaction? If it is a reaction, and the attacker has fired a burst or full auto attack striking with multiple bullets, does your 'firearm parry' negate more than one successful hit? As you say, there is no need to uselessly complicate the game making up rules to fit random choreographed video clips. Might as well through in some jedi, ewoks, and tribbles, I think there are movie clips of those out on Youtube, too. All joking aside, the rules just do not support 'firearm parries' and are fairly clear that they can't be done in game. But lets be real for a moment... just because this is on Youtube doesn't mean it's supported by the rules or welcome in a DH game:
  8. I think the ‘parry pistol’ argument is suffering from category error in that the essence of the action is poorly defined. One should never parry a pistol shot. It’s already been fired, the bullet has left the gun and your options are limited to dodge or not to dodge. From what I am reading above; the action is being described as: 1. Foe pulls gun and begins to take aim 2. Hero jumps in close to the foe and physically prevents them from aiming the gun. As such, this isn’t parrying an attack; it’s preventing an attack. We have entered the realm of grappling. Grappling is defined as an unarmed attack that seeks to immobilize the target. The target of a successful grapple can only grapple in return; no shooting, no dodging, no parrying, no melee attacks, etc, etc. So you have something like this: 1. Foe pulls gun and begins to take aim. 2. Hero jumps in close and ‘blocks the aim’ by a successful grapple. At some point in time, one of the two grappling combatants will choose to 'break grapple as a free action' and take their regular combat moves... There, no need to bend the rules or start inventing new skills for players to worry over.
  9. Hellebore said: N0-1_H3r3 said: Hellebore said: They weren't designed to scare people after all, so they aren't going to appear as giant skeletons. They were luxury items and a slave caste, so some would be shiny and sleak, others chunky and functional. Less Terminator, more Cylon, perhaps? Yes, or perhaps more Star Wars, or even Metropolis or Cybermen. Something less than human without the obvious psychological imagery the necrons have. The war models on the other hand may have looked more intimidating. Hellebore I'd lean toward having some 'replicant' type modles just to include the 'machine that looks human' heretech issue. And that would cover a wide range of MoI's, some more combat and others more task oriented. In fact, I'm tempted to run a set of missions with an anti-climatic ending... something on the order of "the last Logican Initiate falls to your las-fire just as their high priest shouts; "You are too late! Behold the might of a Man of Iron!" A humanoid shape rises off a nearby table, white sheeting falling from atop it. It looks about with an alert eye and speaks; "Ah, we have guests! Pardon the mess, apparently the maid is off today. I'll have that tended to momentarily. May I take your coat, sir?"
  10. I'm going to concur... the additional d10 is needed. And to survive having such weapons shot at you, consider the drawbacks of the weapons themselves that justify the extra damage. For plasma, try to return fire on 'cooldown' rounds. For melta, try to get your foe to expend their extremely limited ammo on hard to hit targets or engage at a greater range. Failing that.... well... there is always fate points!
  11. It may be listed elsewhere... but... a clarification on the use of Corruption Points for anything other than warp related causes. (ie - breaking the law (murder, theft, etc), stray rounds wounding by-standers, immorality, etc.)
  12. Letrii said: Actually the scale is mentioned in the core book. There is a sidebar talking about using maps and the scale is 1m/square. EXCELLENT! Well done and thank you! It would then follow that adjacent = melee = about 1m... center of square to center of square. That said, I (personally) would consider 'special' weapons as having a greater than 1m melee range (pike, (perhaps) spear, (perhaps) polearm, etc, etc); but as a hard and fast rule that's not bogged down by details, 1m works!
  13. Letrii said: 2 words: Power Shield I've been considering that very thing of late, actually, a non-storm shield power-field covered shield. It would be able to block power weapons without damage and parry normal weapons without (I assume) the 75% chance to break them. But as cover? Would it be overpowered to have a 6-8 point armor addition that had could not be destroyed?
  14. (Some) Shields can be used for cover and to parry with. If you use the shield for cover, it should be treated like cover and thus can be detroyed. If you use the shield to parry, then it's treated like any other item that can parry. It's up to the player to deside when to use which option.
  15. Luddite said: Here’s what I think about it from piecing together the rules so far… Pistols can be used in melee, using Ballistic Skill. They do not benefit from +30 Point Blank range bonus. They count as ranged weapons and make ranged attacks while in melee, thus cannot benefit from melee talents (but can benefit from ranged talents). A pistol can make a single shot in melee as a half action. This can be combined with other half actions (move, aim, etc.) as normal. A pistol can make a semi-auto or full-auto attack in melee as a full action. With appropriate two-weapon wielder talents, two pistols can be used in melee, subject to rules 1-4 above, as a full action. Each pistol fires single shot. With appropriate two-weapon wielder talents, a pistol and a melee weapon can be used in melee, subject to rules 1-4 above, as a full action. The pistol fires single shot. Does that make sense? This is spot on.
  • Create New...