Jump to content

xenobiotica

Members
  • Content Count

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About xenobiotica

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  1. Ok, thanks. And holy hel is that quest hard then.
  2. I have just a quick question about this quest: Can the heroes pick up the Shadow Key? Our Overlord player claimed that only Baron Zachareth and the master monsters could pick it up.
  3. "...he has no access to Fettering..." Are you saying he can't use a power at Fettered level? If so, how do you figure? And if not, exactly what do you mean? EDIT: Oh, and about what Ross said, he says to see page 43 in DH for more information, but the section on elite advances on page 43 is all about how elite advances actually work, and how the GM might grant you the option of purchasing specific elite advances, it seems more like he is saying that you can buy all the elite advances your GM is prepared to give you. So it sounds to me as if what he is really saying, is that it's up to each individual GM how many times they can be bought. Note that he said: "There is no limit on the number of Elite Advances you wish to take" and not: "There is no limit on the number of times you can take each Elite Advances." Mack seems to have understood the question better, and given a clearer answer to the question.
  4. I don't think they can be bought more than once. The Primaris Psyker only gets 4 Ascended Psychic Powers and 4 Psy Rating +1, so it seems wrong that an Interrogator or Inquisitor can purchase more than that.
  5. If you use the option given in the book and make the Inquisitor career path an elite advance, you're also given the option to exchange the trait you chose for your previous career path, with one of the Inquisitor's traits. But there's a problem with that if you transition from Interrogator to Inquisitor: what if you chose "The Psyker's Gift" as your Interrogator trait and subsequently purchased some, or all, of those advances? Can you switch that trait for "Conviction is Strenght" or "Purity Is The Only Defense" and still keep the elite advances you already purchased? Since noting is mentioned in the book about this issue, I thought I'd ask here and hear what you people think.
  6. Even if you use that system for the Interrogator's gear, doesn't it seem like he/she still gets the short en of the stick? I mean, even the Sage can start with a best craftsmanship hellpistol, and even a common craftsmanship hellpistol is rare. Isn't it just as likely, that they simply forgot to write down what craftsmanship the weapons should be? And Sister, I agree fully with both your statements, but to use the Sage as an example again, he/she starts with a best craftsmanship flak armour, while the Inquisitor doesn't even get a poor quality flak vest. Again it seems to me that they just forgot to write it down...
  7. I've got two issues about the starting gear for the Interrogator and the Inquisitor. 1. The Interrogator starts with a basic weapon of his choice, no greater availability than rare, and one melee weapon, with the same restriction. However it does not say what the craftsmanship should be. 2. The Inquisitor is the only Ascended career path that doesn't start with an armour (or anything equivalent, such as the Hierophant's choice of a Rosarius instead of a carapace armour). Have these been discussed here before? What sollution would you give for either of these issues?
  8. Is anyone of your players the Rouge Trader? If you're not using any special rules for the Origin Path, all Rouge Traders must have the Motivation Prestige, and that creates alot of ground work for you to build upon. Those seeking prestige will do almost anything to improve their standing in the Imperium of Mankind, all you need to do is let them hear rumors of unexplored or forgotten worlds, places of untold riches or powerful and important groups needing help with any sort of endeavour. The Rouge Trader (if played correctly) would very often sieze such an oppertunity if he or she thought there was a possibility to take one step closer to the top of the ladder. And it's not like the Rouge Trader's ship is a democracy. And if you don't have anyone playing the Rouge Trader, then it'll be as easy as under an Inquisitor in Dark Heresy: they'll be told where to go, what to do, and when to die.
  9. On page 202 under Supplemental Components you'll find that Lances have to installed on a prow weapon slot if the ship is of frigate size or smaller (ie transporters and raiders as well).
  10. You don't have to take two 100xp techniques, but many higher ones require previous techniques, so you're pretty much limited to the 100xp ones and maybe one or two 200.
  11. N0-1_H3r3 said: If you simply assume, as others have noted, that the crew as a whole have sufficient skill (and good conditions, equipment, etc) in their chosen fields that tasks are performed against a value equal to their collective Crew Rating, it works fine. That isn't to say that every single crewman has every stat at, say, 40, though... it's more likely an average, covering skilled specialists directing unskilled labourers, natural variation in ability, etc. Think of it this way - a single turn in starship combat is half an hour long. Within that time, a lot is happening to perform any given action - equivalent to 360 Full-Round Actions per person. Within that time and that abundance of actions, there will be a lot of (hypothetical) tests being taken to do things quickly and efficiently in such a manner that the ship does as its captain desires. The overall results of those tests is what matters - Command Tests to get the work-crews moving, strength tests to haul shells around quickly, tech-use tests to operate machinery, Trade (Technomat) or Common Lore (Tech) tests to speak the correct litanies, climb tests to move around scaffolds and rigging, and so on - which all then average out into a single value tested against to determine the success of the action: the Crew Rating. The hundreds of men whose only jobs are to load macrocannon shells and clean the guns won't be all that tech-savvy. They're unskilled manual labour. They'll have a decent strength and toughness, and an acceptable agility, but they won't be anything special. Their boss will be a particularly mean example of their number, more intimidating than commanding. They'll all work at the behest of a gunner, whose job is then to ensure that his guns are working and that they fire properly when commanded to by the Master of Gunnery or equivalent on the bridge, setting the correct firing patterns, figuring out the details to ensure that the shots hit where they're needed, and a Tech-Priest of some sort whose job is to deal with the technical issues with his crew of lesser Tech-Adepts and servitors. Of that group, the only one likely to even need a BS of 40 is the Gunner; the rest have other things to be worrying about and jobs that don't require Ballistic Skill. His BS will probably be a little above that of the Crew Rating number, in fact; the average needs to account for the failures of less-skilled subordinates as well as his own skill at his particular job (which will probably contain a fair few Tech-Use and Logic tests as well). When it comes to interacting with the crew in any detail beyond their existence as a general mass of faceless subordinates, they should have appropriate characteristics written up or at least estimated by the GM. The Crew Rating value should be used as a guideline to determine their ability at the task they're called upon to perform, but everything else is up for grabs. See you're kinda proving a part of my point here: too much of this comes fom assumption (however plausible), and not enough is explained in the book; I didn't mean for it to come across that I thought all my crew should have 40 in absolutely everything they do, it's just that it could easily be taken to mean just that because of the lack of information. RPG's depend heavily on rules, and if they're not laid out clearly enough, stuff like this is bound to happen. Still I would argue that it definitely should be within the realm of possibility that the armsmen (that were mentioned in the quote from page 188)aboard the ship could have a BS or WS (or both) of 40 if they're part of a crack crew. Comparing this to "The Masses of Humanity" on page 370, we can see that a Hired Gun is described as: "of moderate skill and expendable nature can be found across the Koronus Expanse", and they have a BS of 35. "Moderate skill" certainly doesn't sounds better than "Crack Crew", as the Merriam-Webster dictionary would define "crack" as: of superior excellence or ability. Of course it's all just words, I'm just saying you should think carefully about what words you use.
  12. N0-1_H3r3 said: Essentially, crew rating is what you test against and nothing more. Given the number of variable factors involved in the modifiers for any given test, the crew's characteristics could essentially be any combination of characteristics, skills, talents, conditions and equipment. It's a quick and easy way to not have to provide stats and skills for every possible type of crewman aboard a ship, which would take up pages and pages of space. Reading into it too much will only cause a range of bizarre results. It all works well enough in space battles, but can still cause the same problems when bringing crew along outside the ship, or just playing more in-depth on board. I don't think my GM would agree that no matter what the circumstances or situation, any tests any of our crew ever makes should be against a skill or characteristic rating of 40. For that would be the quick and easy way, no?
  13. But if we have gunners with 40 BS, shouldn't we be able to have soldiers with 40 BS? They should be part of the crew just like everyone else, right? In a crew of over 20 000, in a obviously leathal universe, and in a part of space with little imperial influence, shouldn't there be at least enough trained soldiers, or something similar, aboard to be able to defend the ship that sails those waters (metaphorically speaking of course)? And to quote page 188: "The void-faring vessels of the Imperium are far more than simple vehicles. With the smallest more than a kilometer in lenght, a void-ship bears a striking resemblance to an Imperial hive in miniature, with a population to match. There are the low-decks pressmen and servitors responsible for brute labor, the gunnery teams who man the ship's weaponry and the armsmn who keep order amongst the crew. However, there are also galley-masters, artisans of all types, chirurgeons, and mech-wrights, for a void-ship must be self-sufficient in all respects." And as a side note: it does say that the crew rating determins both Skills and Characteristics, so it would seem they do not have +10 in any skill.
  14. So me and my fellow players got ourselves a Crack Crew upon creating our starship, so they have a Skills and Characteristics rating of 40 (according to Table 8-9 on page 214). Now does that mean that they all have 40 in all characteristics or just the characteristics related to the skill their job on the ship would entail? (ie the pilot would have an Agility score of 40 but, say, 30 in all others, and the Tech-user would have an Intelligence score of 40 but, again say, 30 in all others.) Our GM seems to think the latter, and he doesn't think it would extend to the soldiers (or whatever you'd call the ones who would fight off an enemy boarding party) in the crew we brought with us as defence down onto the planet we were supposed to explore. He gave them a characteristic score of 30 in everything instead, including the very important BS. And he also thought they would be about as loyal to me (as I am the Rouge Trader) as a common merc; wouldn't think twice about saving their own skin instead of fighting a losing battle, even if I was standing in battle with them. I was under the impression that a Rouge Trader would command a bit more respect and loyalty than that. So more or less, I'd just like to hear other views on our situation here. Would you agree with our GM's choices?
×
×
  • Create New...