Jump to content

Varnias Tybalt

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Everything posted by Varnias Tybalt

  1. I'd advise the GM to either increase the agility of a servitor purposebuilt for closecombat, or grant it the Unnatural Speed trait (to symbolize that while it may still be sluggish, it has heavy-duty leg pistons installed to drive it forward fast enough to charge it's targets).
  2. Mazinkaiser said: The problem is living long enough to get to become a Magos. Technically a techpriest could be considered a Magos as soon as he hits one of his last ranks (Magos Errant, Magos or in the case of Mechanicus Secutors: Magos Militant). But it will differ from group to group if they actually go on the rank names or not.
  3. St. Jimmy said: One of my players has uttered the line "If I had a teleporter, I'd send over a bomb." And what would that gain them in the long run? What do they have to "win" by obliterating the opposing vessel entirely? Sure if they were space marines tasked at destroying their opponent utterly, then that might have been a viable tactic. But they are supposed to be playing Explorers in a Rogue Traders most trusted group of associates. So if your player want to teleport over a bomb, then fine, let him. Either the bomb won't work (after all, starships in the 41st millenium are presented as being horrendously difficult to destroy utterly, even when their shields are down and the vessel is crippled, there's no guarantee that "sending over a nuke" would actually destroy it in the expected manner), or the bomb will work, pulvirizing the enemy vessel. And just as that player thinks he's been smart and feel exceptionally pleased with himself, you can tell them of just how many achievement points that went lost because a certain someone decided that it would be a "very good idea" to reduce the enemy vessel to it's constituent atoms, rather than engaging it in the traditional manner, cripple it and then salvage the wreck, either to repair it and use it as a new ship in the Rogue Trader's fleet, or to get spare parts and acquire certain components from the wreck and install them on the home vessel. If you want to be extra mean, tell them of how many valuable xenotech and archaeotech components that were lost because of their cheesy tactics, that could have been gained if they had just used a little more finesse in defeating the enemy vessel rather than just blowing it all up. It stands to reason that a Rogue Trader would want to find a way to gain something during a hostile confrontation. If they just arbitrarily send over nukes with a teleportarium against each enemy vessel they run into, then all they are really doing is wasting ammo and time. This could very well hurt their profit factor because after each confrontation they are always empty handed because there's nothing left to loot. Aside from that, there's the whole detonation thing to consider. Suppose that the PC's intend to detonate the bomb by remote. That means that they have to use vox signals, something that can be prevented by a single "Jam communications" action by the NPC vessel (I mean if an armed nuclear bomb suddenly materialized out of hin air aboard your vessel, but has no countdown. What would you do?). And if they want to avoid that, they would have to set the bomb to a timer, something that could be very temperamental when used with a teleportarium (who's to say that the involved time distortion doesn't just detonate the bomb before it has even materialized aboard the target vessel? After all, not even the Mechanicus know the exact specifics of how a teleportarium works, or what side effects it can have). As you can see, there are plenty of reasons why sending over a bomb would be a bad idea. As a last resort when being stacked against overwhelming odds perhaps (like when you are suddenly assaulted by a Necron Cairn class Tombship or some other nigh invulnerable enemy vessel), but doing it all the time at every situation would be a bad idea. If you let the players know this, im sure they would reconsider. St. Jimmy said: Being transported through the Warp to arrive at your destination is an imperfect science, made all the harder by the fact that next to nothing is known about how these ancient devices work. Those capable of manipulating the Warp can help direct it. A character operating the Teleportarium may make a Psyniscience check. Sucess indicates that the target has arrived relatively safely, with degrees of success or failure used to judge how far off target the teleported character lands. Sending a character to a teleport homer, or retrieving a group with one, gives +20 on this check. Even at the best of times, a teleportation is dangerous. If the psyniscience check was sucessful, the subject takes 1d5 damage, -1 for every degree of success. A failed teleport causes 2d5 damage, +1 for every degree of failure. This damage ignores armour. Just a note: Teleportariums don't transport matter through the warp. Warp travel is a different "science" Teleportariums (as per their description) work more like they do in Star Trek (albeit in a more primitive and considerably less understood manner), by splitting the cargo/travellers down into their constituent particles and assemble them almos instantly a set distance away. At least according to the most recent fluff. (Eldar Warp Spiders do however make short leaps through the warp, but that's eldar tech)
  4. Okay, im in the process of drawing up a bunch of pre-made templates of a variety of different shapes. The current thought here is to use a standard size for all templates (10x10 squares), where the default scale is 1 square = 1 metre. But it will have support for scale shifts, where each square could be 5, 10 or even 100 metres across depending on what the GM feels is best. Meaning that some times one template with a few narrow alleyways that are by default only two meters wide, can be scaled up to become a majesticly wide promenade between two city blocks (rather than just two buildings), capable of letting scores of baneblade superheavy tanks roll alongside of eachother if the GM wishes it. Also, I have set a goal of constructing several different tables for different kinds of templates. At the moment im constructing templates that look like they have two entrance/exit ways. Basically these particular templates will serve as good corridors, alleyways, streets and such and they will have their own chart. But im also thinking of creating templates with three and four entrance/exit-ways, and templates that are "open" on all sides (but have a bunch of clutter and obstacles scattered about), and templates that look "closed" and where the entryways are up to the GM to decide (for use when you want a quick layout of a single room or a gigantic hold/warehouse depending on what type of scale is being used). So the classes of the templates are currently divided between: * rooms * 2-way templates * 3-way templates * 4-way templates * open ground And depending on how many topography configurations I can come up with, each template class will hopefully have 100 results to choose from (one for every result on the d100 ). This means that there are at least 500 different templates to choose from (or roll up with dice on the fly), would that be enough? Of course, if all of this is supposed to be gather into one PDF, the template maps will be rather small (I'll probably try to fit at least 6 of them on every page), and they will look rather primitive (no fancy artwork on my part since im doing it all in MS paint for ease of mass-production, but like I said the goal with this tool isn't to create accurate dioramas of the current surroundings, only as a means to gain instant inspiration for places that aren't normally mapped out by the GM on beforehand). Of course, six of 10x10 square templates on every page will most likely be too small to use 28mm miniatures directly on top of, but due to the simplified "artwork" depicting the topography it shouldn't be too hard to blow up the templates and print them out to get the squares in the correct scale if some players prefer to do that. Anyhow, im thinking that in order to keep the templates as easy to configure as possible, they have to be small, simplified and diverse. If they are cluttered up with unecessary that details that should be covered by the GM's and the players imagination (like drawing out individual tables and chairs in a room, or trashcans and cardboard boxes in alleyways) the main purpose will be lost. Also, what the individual templates might lack in artistic beauty, the additional enviroment and surrounding trait charts should more than make up for it. Any more input so far?
  5. Monospot said: After 7 hours, 3 characters in critical damage range, and several corruption and insanity points later, we each got about 300xp. I would agree that 300 xp is a bit cheap, because as recommended abstract method in the rulebook, PC's are usually awarded 200 xp för each four hours of gameplay. If you played for 7 hours (in real world time that is) then you should at least get 400 xp each (since it's nearly 8 hours of gameplay time). Of course, the GM is by no means forced to use this abstract method and my dictate the exact amount of xp awarded and this is something that you as a player will have to respect. Remember, the harder the xp are to get, the more you will treasure them. Also, remember that Dark Hersy isn't a game where you get xp for each "bad guy" you kill (a la World of Warcraft), but XP awards are mostly based on roleplaying efforts and cunning and inovative ways of solving problems and using your skills. From the sound of it, it sounds like your characters mostly shot their way through most of the scenario. Not that im trying to complain of your efforts or anything, by an chump can point a firearm and pull the trigger until their enemies goes down. It's not a lot of roleplaying involved when shooting things, nor is it a particularly cunning approach to problem solution. For all we know, your GM might not even had the intention for you to shoot your way through your adversaries. The reason why you managed to kill them all might have been because you were a rather large group (6 player characters, even low level ones, can be quite deadly combatants if they use the correct tactics during combat), but your GM might wanted to see if you would take more creative solutions to getting past these heretics rather than just shooting your way past them. And such creative solutions might have awarded you more xp. Anyhow, as for threat rating, the setting is the grimdark and deadly future of the 41st millenium. The GM shouldn't feel too obligated to scale the threats according to the player group. If you feel that it is "unfair" to be assaulted by a mob of charnel daemons, then consider that life is rarely fair at all. Especially not in the 41st millenium. Also remember that sometimes you have to run away from a fight in order to complete a mission. A group of dead acolytes who thought it would be "valiant" to fight a last stand against overwhelming odds haven't gained the Inquisition anything at all. If the adversaries seem to powerful, and you notice that you have to spend and burn fatepoints like they were candy, then perhaps a tactical retreat might be prudent. If the GM decides to punish you for retreating during overwhelming odds, then you might consider having a debate about the threats your PC's were pitted against. If he's pitting you against a greater daemon of Khorne, and only let you use cardboard armour and spoons for weapons then it's safe to assume that your odds aren't just "unfavorable", they are flat out impossible. If you get punished for running away when it might be necessary to do so to stay alive, then you might need to ask your GM why he's trying to kill off your characters. An overwhelming sense of risk of dying is necessary for this kind of setting, and some characters dying from time to time might not always be a "bad" thing. But when it is fairly obvious that the Gm is trying to kill all of your characters, it goes to question if the GM actually wants to play at all. Without PC's there's not much playing to be done after all...
  6. Xisor said: I also like the name. Mulder. Get it? One would think that "Agent Skully" would be more appropriate. Though when I played an Explorator for a brief while, he called his servo skull "Roger"... As in "Jolly Roger". Because the gang didn't seem piratical enough he had to bring some slight taste of piracy to it all.
  7. Casamyr said: Sholto's Arethusa. In the 3rd book, or page 819 of the Omnibus Sholto makes a comment that the entire crew of the Arethusa takes a gig down to Gudrun after mutinying. Sholto even comments a little earlier that he doesn't have any cutters, or even landers, just a couple of old gigs. Since Thonius and his band took one, there was only the one and I assume, maybe wrongly, that the lander was very small, certainly not big enough to take thousands, maybe a hundred, but even then I suspect that is too big. Hence my '20 or so'. Plus I'm sure that Sholto gives his entire crew shore leave somewhere and it is a small number. Arbitrary maybe, maybe just my interpretation of the text. It was just the vision I have had in my head of the Arethusa. The Hinterlight I alwyas envisioned being much bigger. While Sholto's vessel do seem rather undercrewed (heck, everything about his vessel seemed sub par compared to all Imperial standards), one have to remember that landing- and shuttlecraft can be quite big (some big enough to ferry several companies of Guardsmen and even big things like Imperator Titans). Also, didn't several crew members die because of the mutiny and thus the remaining crew would have been pretty decimated?
  8. Tang86 said: Skaven background and their technology and their magic make for great tales (tails?) as those of you who have also played Mordheim and Warhammer Fantasy Battle know. What I know from these games is that the Ratling Gun is a very funny weapon (but the warpfire thrower sucks for some reason), and in Mordheim, my Skaven warband usually tend to **** every other warband quite easily with their sneakyness and outnumbering their foes.
  9. Casamyr said: In the Ravenor series, the Inquistor travels on a tiny ship, only a crew of 20 or so, but was still capable of warp travel. That is probably a bit of an extreme example, but I was quite surprised to not see smaller hull types, or lifters and gun cutters and the like, though i'm guessing that'll all be in later books. Which ship would that be? In Ravenor he spend most of his travels aboard two Rogue Trader vessels. Either Cynia Preest's Hinterlight or Sholto Unwerth's Arethusa. Non of which are "tiny ship's with a crew of only 20 or so". The Hinterlight was most definetly of a raider or frigate size at least, and the Arethusa was clearly a transport vessel of some kind. Not one of these were ever described as being of "Millenium Falcon size", and I'd say that your number of 20 crewmembers is a bit arbitrary. There are still lifters and gun cutters in Rogue Trader, but they aren't described because these vessels aren't warp capable.
  10. Rabidredneck said: Maybe a multitool and trade-technomat so it can assist with repairs? Well I wouldn't pick Trade (Technomat), but rather choose Tech-Use if the skull is supposed to have a multitool. Otherwise, it's assistance would pretty much only apply to Trade (Technomat) tests.
  11. Graver said: before I can answer your question, I need to ask you one of my own: which of those two fellas would look badass 3 seconds latter. In your answer will be mine ;-) The guy with the spoon of course. He's the archetypical "strong eagle" (or "aquila" since it is 40K) that doesn't need to flaunt it's claws. He had a big ass sword strapped to his back, yet he chose to use a rusty spoon as a method of intimidation and to prove a point. The first guy on the other hand trusted his ***** enlarger and hoped that it and it's jagged, motorized teeth would discourage the stronger eagle. The stronger eagle wasn't discouraged by the ***** enlarger at all and is confident in his abilities and certain in the knowledge that if a fight were to break out between the two, 3 seconds later he would be the one scooping brain matter with his spoon out of the shattered skull of the first guy armed with the ***** enlarger.
  12. Dalnor Surloc said: Your argument completely fails as: 1)Choices in the orgin path can only move the group's profit up or down 1 or 2 points. Given the combined Ship Points and Profit Factor is score is 90. 1 or 2 points is a in the bucket. Yes, but those only represent minute differences due to particular freak instances occuring in the origin path. It still proves that individual PC's have a significant impact on the overall profit factor. And the system even extrapolates upon this due to the fact that certain talents possessed only by individual PC's can contribute with additional achievment points during endavours. The system blatantly screams that all PC's have an equal stake in the dynasty's business, so no my argument doesn't "fail completely" at all. And I haven't even started on extrapolating upon the obvious benefits of using a consistent system of rules that will actively prohibit players playing certain classes (like the Rogue Trader) from suffering from delisions of grandeur mid-game and take those delusions out on the other players and their characters. The Rogue Trader has something very tangible to lose by unfairly mistreating his closest associates, and it makes sense on so many levels. Both in game and out of game...
  13. Dalnor Surloc said: I'm not sure the Explorator leaving would put such a dent in the Profit factor of group. The tech priest isn't any where as rich as the Rogue Trader. The real problem is that the Explorator would take all the tech priests with him. No tech priests no working ship. The RT would need to work out a new deal with another group of tech priests or heritechs. Considering that the individual choices for each PC on the Origin Path can either contribute or decrease the entire group's total profit factor, then it stands to reason that the profit factor isn't merely a measurement of the Rogue Trader's personal wealth, but rather the amount of wealth, contacts, banked favors, I.O.U's etc. etc. pooled together by the entire party. Thus if one character decides to leave, he or she takes his or her share of the total profit factor with him/her.
  14. WayOfTheGun said: I would leave Prosanguine the way it is in Rouge Trader otherwise its just worthless (even more than it already is). You call replicating the effect of spending an entire fate point with a successful Tech-use test "worthless"? Are we a bit spoiled perhaps?
  15. Smokes said: This makes more sense, you test BS to see if the bullet will hit or if will go wide. Yes, but it's pretty much the same thing with a flamer, only that each target risking to get hit test their Ag to see if the flames "go wide" rather than the shooter testing against BS to determine exactly how "wide" the flames go. You feel me? And if those flames were to hit a character, then that character can attempt to dodge them.
  16. St Drusus' Bones said: So, which of you pronounce Adeptus Astartes, 'Ah-Starts' or 'As-Tarts' Seems to me 'Ah-Star-Teez' sounds better. As does 'Ar-By-Teez'. IMHO I pronounce it the same as with the Arbites. I go with: Adeptus Arr-beet-es so Astartes would be Adeptus Astart-es (not "eez")
  17. Cifer said: Got to agree here. The funniest thing is that the author's preconceptions about how it should look like ("Like Star Wars with little freighters and lovable small time scoundrels") are pretty much exactly how the fandom feared the whole thing would turn out before the first Designer Diaries came ("No way will we be able to play as actual Rogue Traders with our own frigates or cruisers!"). Hehe, yeah I gotta admit I chuckled a little when I read: Surely there are a myriad of types of ships in the 40K galaxy and they’re not all monstrously enormous with crews of 200. Where are the Pintos and Smart Cars of the 40K galaxy? Surely theres something more affordable to fly than a battle cruiser. And if they don’t exist in the mythos, why didn’t the writers do they something cool called “make them up.” All I could think of was the angry mob of redclad, redemptionist WH40K fans, banging at the doors of Fantasy Flight Games HQ screaming: -"Blasphemers! Heretics! Everybody knows there are no such things as Pintos and Smart Cars of the 40K galaxy! You can't fit the required warp engines and geller field generators to such puny vessels like the ones in Star Wars!" Also, "Crews of 200"!? Surely that must be a type-o on the reviewers part. A crew of 200 people is nothing in WH40K. It's barely enough to clean a single macro cannon let alone running an entire starship. Like I said, clearly this reviewer wasn't very familiar with the 40K setting. He might have made a more or less correct analogy of Warhammer Fantasy Role Play being a nitty, gritty version of AD&D. But Rogue Trader is by no means a nitty, gritty version of Star Wars. The 40K setting makes it impossible.
  18. Old timer said: I like the idea, it would make handling combat in my DH games, that like yours incorperate a lot of 'sand box' elements, much easier. A suggested scale for the templates would be one square = one metre, and each template is either 5x5 squares or maybe 10x10. If using figures, then the 'standard' 25mm -28mm would work well, though so could 15-20mm figures. Each square would have a real world measerment of say 1 inch (2.5cm metric). Hexagons are also another option. Just some ideas, hope they help. This is one thing that is bugging me at the moment. I've also been thinking of the "1 square = 1 metre" approach, although not specifically with use of 28 mm minis in mind yet (though some people would really like to see that). The problem is to decide exactly how large each standardized template should be. 5x5 squares or 10x10? Should they be small enough for most player characters to easily run through in just one round of combat, or should they be large enough to take at least 3-4 turns to run across? Guessing from the general idea, I'd opt for the latter, that each template is large enough to let PC's and NPC's run across them for several turns before "running out of room" so to speak, lest the combat might be cluttered down with the GM having to roll up new templates too often depending on what the combatants are doing. But perhaps someone would disagree with me on that one? Also, im thinking of perhaps dividing the template maps into a set number of categories like: indoor-templates, urban outdoor-templates and non-urban outdoor-templates.
  19. ItsUncertainWho said: Sounds like the Dungeon Tile sets WoTC came out with, just expanded a bit. I like the random table to generate them. I have a set of dice that does the same thing. The Dungeon Tiles were not bad to play with but it seemed to take longer to set them up than to just sketch on a battlemat. Yes, the analogy of dungeon tiles wouldn't be too far off. The main difference with my intentions is that it's not supposed to be a mechanic specifically caterign to the use of miniatures and setting up tiles, but more of a narrative tool to help place both the GM and the players in the same mindset so that everyone can trace back to a tangible grip on what their current surroundings look like. So it would be more of an inspirational tool for making a quick sketch on a battlemat, rather than actually going thrrough all the hassle of using tiles and minis. Because sometimes battles do happen in places the GM didn't expect. Perhaps one of the PC's become overly insulted by a business porposition of a shady drug dealer in an even more shady bar, but at that time, the only thing that the GM and the players know about the bar is that it is a bar, and that it is dark. They haven't yet established what shape the rooms are in or how many tables and chairs clutter up the enviroment or where the exits are etc. If the GM were to determine that he hadn't really gone through these details himself, and rule that it's not that important exactly how the premises are designed, then he could get a quick boost of inspiration from just rolling a die and consult the map template chart and decide what the premises look like. In other words, more food for the imagination to draw up quick sketches rather than painstakingly try to recreate the exact specifics like a miniature diorama of the premises in question.
  20. Gregorius21778 said: I think this solution would be difficult to build. Mind extrapolating a little? Gregorius21778 said: EDIT: Unless you expect FFG to pic up on the idea and sell it to us A flattering propositon, but it's my idea and I intend to get something out there. The way I see it now is that it's just a compilation of a few tables, where the main table have a bunch of results, each connected to a certain map template. Im just prodding for some more input (as of now, im trying to figure out a bunch of map templates and what default scale and size the should be in) and other ideas that might improve it.
  21. Gregorius21778 said: For the other "Peer" Talents, there is "base of use" any player and GM can judge fairly well. There is not that much discussion about if some-one is worker, clergy, criminal etc. Well, at least not at my game table. Is it really that clear cut in your game? I mean, let's consider Peer (Workers) a little. Naturally the multitudes of people slaving over the assembly lines of countless manufactoria would be a no brainer for this. But what about their overseers, the morale/propaganda boosters, the inspection clerks, the assembly line mechanics etc. etc. ? I mean, they might have a multitude of different job descriptions, but pretty much all of them belong to the same social class and work together in the same enviroment. Wouldn't they all count as "workers" in that scenario? The same goes for talents like Peer (The Ecclesiarchy). Not everyone affiliated with the Ecclesiarchy are priests, clerics, altar boy's etc. The Ecclesiarchy is a massive organisation including many different kinds of people that recognize and practice it's practices and formal codes. From certain pious nobles that give contributions to the building of new cathedrals, to the pauper warriors that fight in the many holy wars backed by the Ecclesiarchy. In my opinion, everyone of these would be subjected to he Peer (The Ecclesiarchy) talent. You see where im going with this? So while the talent itself might give a set number in how large of a bonus you get to your interaction skills with the group of people that the talent concerns, which types of people the talent actually encompass is largely up to the GM and should most of the time be determined according to a case by case manner. Also, if you're the GM, don't be afraid to let certain Peer talents stack with eachother. After all, if you're dealing with a Noble Born Cleric NPC, then naturally you should benefit from both the Peer (Nobility) and Peer (The Ecclesiarchy) if you have both of them. Symbolizing that you might greet the cleric in a formal manner with the proper codes and jargong appropriate for any Ecclesiarch, but once you get to know him or her better and about the him(her noble background you switch topics and mannerisms to one appropriate when dealing with nobels, and thus make an extra good impression that you are a well connected and a person of good manners and education.
  22. BrotherHostower said: It's not impossible (just highly, highly improbable) that a Rogue Trader will be part of an endeavor that sees the destruction/disabling of a Necron Tomb (though what an Endeavor that would make!). The sheer scale of the game stands that by the end, your RT could be leading a grand crusade into the Halo stars at the head of a fleet of starships, regments of Imperial Guard and even companies of Space Marines (and the Necron homeworld is even in the Halo Stars). Usually when Imperials (including Rogue Traders) run into Necron Tomb's, they don't know it's a Necron Tomb to begin with. They tamper around with it and suddenly it's guards awake and kill everyone whom it may concern. The Imperial response to this is usually to nuke the entire site from orbit and blast everything back to it's constuent atoms. You don't "disable" a Necron Tomb and loot it to your hearts content. You either invade it when it is still inactive (and will most likely inadvertetly activate it) or you blast it apart from orbit and just hope that the Tomb doesn't hide a big bad Tombship or something that rise from the wreckage and destroy you, or that a nearby Necron fleet teleports in and do the same thing. BrotherHostower said: That being said, it's probably more likely that they will run into a dreaded Tomb Ship and may even disable it through sheer volume of damage in space combat and be able to lay claim to their weaponry. As I said, there is no "disabling" of anything Necron. You either destroy it completely or it will slip through your fingers (even their starships "phase out" if they become crippled). BrotherHostower said: There is precedent (even past the Inquisitor book) for being able to use Necron weaponry, assassins of the Callidus temple have been using C'Tan phase swords since their inception in the game. These may have been looted from a disabled Tomb, taken and "reforged" from their own war scythes, etc. C'Tan phase swords are rumoured to be made of the same stuff as the C'Tan's necrodermis. The C'Tan Necrodermis is made from living necron metal (as is most things built by the Necrontyr). The living metal in this case seems to be some sort of nanorobotic "grey goo" capable of partial replication (thus being able to repair even the most extreme injury sustained by Necron machinery). However, even the living metal can become overloaded and incapable of self-repair in some cases (Necrons being crushed under tanks for instance cannot repair themselves, and certain power weapons can also make them incapable of self-repairing unless a Resurrection Orb is present). Naturally it's safe to assume that the bombardment of starship weapons would have the same effect on pretty much all exotic alloys that Necron technology is built from. I'd say that the C'Tan phase swords are most likely constructed and forged from miniscule amounts of harvested living metal from Necron Tombs that have already been destroyed. Most of the complicated pieces of Necron technology would have naturally been obliterated by such damage, but small amounts of non-inert living metal might still be possible to harvest (and we can assume that the Adeptus Mechanicus would comb even obliterated Necron ruins for this stuff if there's a chance it can be found). You could compare it to a Space Marine Land Raider being blown to pieces, and along comes an Ork and decides to fashion a choppa out of some of the armoured plates from the Land Raider. The choppa wouldn't be nearly as sophisticated as an entire tank used by the Adeptus Astartes, but it would probably be a pretty durable and formidable choppa in comparison to the more primitive version made through Orkish manufacture (i.e taking some raw ore and beating it until it has the "ko-ekt shape") BrotherHostower said: Why didn't they loot the gauss flayers? because they're bulky, large (even on a Necron the rifle itself is almost as big as it is, and it's as big as a space marine), and very, very clearly alien. I'd rather say that it is because there wouldn't be any gauss flayers to loot, because they would have been destroyed as the rest of the tomb. According to the most recent fluff regarding Necrons (the Codex: Necrons), no significant piece of Necron Technology has ever been captured. So far they have been able to pick at some scraps that might have been left behind after having blown up a Necron Tomb, but nothing even close to the sophistication of a Gauss Flayer. In fact, even the chapter that describes an Adeptus Mechanicus study of Necron weaponry is all based on guesswork and after-action reports. They didn't actually have a piece of Gauss weaponry to prod and tinker around with. Hence why there are many gaps in the theory of how they work, because the AdMech just don't know since they have never even had the chance to study anything moresophisticated than the odd inert piece of living metal. BrotherHostower said: In Rogue Trader, I'd probably treat them as being like a space marine bolter, needing something like a strength of 40 and/or bulging biceps to wield one without a penalty, and probably very limited ammunition as I have a feeling that those power cores probably draw from the Necron it's armed by and would only have whatever it has left stored in it for shots. That's your prerogative of course. Personally though I wouldn't ever let a player character be able to loot a true Necron weapon. Necrons are the kind of foe that you must try to destroy outright and as fast as possible (or at least make them phase out) before they get a chance to fully awaken and erase you and your ship from existence. This makes them seem like the really scary xenos that they are intended to be. The one so terrifying that the Inquisition and the Imperial authorities knows that they couldn't beat them in a stand up fight and thus try to cover up most information regarding their existence (remember that a bunch of Shroud class cruisers managed to land on the surface of Mars itself, bypassing pretty much everything the Imperial defences could muster). This will also make those small snippets of revealed lore regarding the Necrons seem that much more special. Basically the player characters are supposed to feel priviliged just by escaping with their lives and that they managed to acquire some pretty darn obscure knowledge about this mythical xenos race. If they start prospecting in "how to loot a Gauss flayer" they would be pushing their luck.
  23. I don't think the Peer talents are supposed to be based on set numbers of insanity points. It's just something that let's the PC get along a little better with certain NPC's. Peer (The Insane) would therefore perhaps give the PC a chance to interact with even the most unhiged paranoid schizofrenics who seem to view the other PC's as vicious monsters with crocodile heads being out to get the schizofrenic person. A character with Peer (the insane) would somehow be able to relate to these delusions and thus establish some sort of common ground with a clearly delusional person. Perhaps by playing along with the delusions and claim that he also sees the monsters with the crocodile heads... Or because the PC in question can genuinely see them. Anyway, it would be up to the GM to decide which NPC's this talent would be relevant with and not something that could easily be based on a set number of insanity points.
  24. Hello everyone, I've been thinking (... yes it do happen on occasion ) Im trying to visualize an idea I have for a sort of game mechanic/GM tool. Not necessarily for Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader only, since I imagine that it could be used for a wide variety of RPG's, but because those are the games im most involved with at the moment im going to base it all on those games. I thought of this idea when I pondered over the problem of random encounters/combats that is usually added as a spice (or happens due to actions taken by the players). I like my scenarios to incorporate a lot of sandbox elements, and because of that, fighting can happen pretty much anywhere at any time. But most of the time, I have to fudge the exact topography of each location where a battle might occur because I couldn't possibly draw a map of each and every little location where the PC's might get into trouble. Fudging these locations is probably the most common tactic for any GM, but I've noticed that sometimes you can run into some problems when doing that. Combats should be fast paced and loaded with action after all, and when you have to do it all "on the go", chances are that you might have to keep the exact nature and look of the battlefield extremely abstract and just hope that the players get the same mental image as you do during the combat in question. The idea here is partly inspired by certain boardgames like "Zombies!!!" by Journeyman Press, or how about Games Workshops old classic "Space Hulk", where the game board isn't pre-made like in normal boardgames, but you build it, either as you go along, or as specific configurations for each session/mission dictates. Couldn't this philosophy be converted into an awesome tool for the odd random combat that might occur during an RPG session? Like let's say that you had a number of pre-made "template maps" of with modular sizes and scales of different topographies, like corridors with adjoining rooms and doorways, intersections, alleyways with stacked boxes and garbage cans of many different configurations etc. etc. Perhaps these template maps can even be structured into a table where each template has a set number and if the GM feels like randomizing what the location looks like s/he can just roll a d100, take a look at the chart and say: -"Bam! That's what the place you're in looks like. You guys are here behind those crates, and the bad guys are here and every square on the map is 1*1 metre. Now roll initiative!" Also, what if these template maps had tables describing certain "locations traits" that determine how good or poor lighting that general area has at the moment, or perhaps even more dangerous traits such as having plenty of gaslines in the area that might get ruptured by stray shots and thus rupture and spew out gouts of fire? Or perhaps a location has plenty of "nooks and crannies" which means that even if a certain wall might look "flat" on the standardized template maps, a PC or an NPC can benefit from having a set amount of cover just by standing next to those "flat" walls. Basically, my idea here is a "shake-n-bake" system for instant battlefields for the GM's who already feel a little overwhelmed with keeping track of all those aspects that GM:ing demands and might experience difficulties in just make up random locations at the top of their head. In addition, the system could also provide a GM with inspiration for more elaborate locations by using and connecting the standardized template maps into more complex areas for those "special encounters" which the GM has prepared on beforehand. Of course, all this might sound a little "dungeon crawley" to some of you, but that's not really my intention. This system will come with a GM-fiat disclaimer and if s/he doesn't like certain results or certain configurations of the standardized template maps, s/he can change them as he or she pleases. Indeed, the GM won't even have to reveal a map of the location at all if he/she just want to keep the players in an abstract mood, but only use this as a method to keep track of things him/herself. What do you guys think of the idea so far? Would it be useful/helpful? All input would be appriciated.
  25. Dyckman86 said: It doesn't give a time frame in the text block for Prosanguine, and the only time it overstresses the implant is if you roll a 96-100. For RT at least, I don't have a DH book to look at. Well, personally I don't see why Prosanguinators in RT should be any different from those in DH. My guess is that this is just one of the many things that got recycled from DH, but becuse FFG had to include a bunch of new stuff as well, they had to "cut corners" with the old stuff, and certain tidbits of text might have gotten removed because of that. Being able to spam-use Prosanguinators seem awfully imbalanced after all, especially since the prerequisite Autosanguine talent makes the user to always be considered lightly wounded (and thus easily healed with a Medicae check). Being able to instantly heal 1d5 wounds after a 10 minute meditation is still pretty darn good (remember, fate points can be spent to heal 1d5 wounds too, so having a talent that can do the same thing once every twelve hours is pretty badass).
  • Create New...