Jump to content

Varnias Tybalt

Members
  • Content Count

    2,036
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Varnias Tybalt

  1. DM Variyn said: TOUCHE! Yet if you remember you must make a flight test just to get to the Emporers Bounty. Could you drag essiental compents through that space without damaging them? Now that's an entirely different problem, but I like that you bring it up. If you want to, you could decide that the salvaging of certain components is going to require very difficult pilot tests to be able to tow these components through the debris field without damaging the component in question. After all, these components weren't designed to have to cope with being dragged through space and being bombarded by debris and asteroids during the trip, they were designed to stay safely inside the vessel, protected by armour, hull and voidshields. Which of course means that the PC's are going to have to be crafty if they want to salvage "the good stuff" and not just having to settle for cogitator banks, equipment and grav plates bolted to the decking. Another way to solve the issue might be to spend some time bombarding the debris field and hopefully clear away enough scrap and rock (i.e spending a week playing "asteroids" over a gun platform console). That's what we did in my group when we played Forsaken Bounty, and our GM decided that because of our extreme amount of degrees of success we got, the pilot test to navigate to the derelict vessel wasn't as hard as it usually was. In any case, make sure to let the players come up with ideas of how to salvage the vessel, and review their attempts before they get to do them. Certain attempts that seem crafty and smart should be rewarded, sometimes regardless if they are successful or not (even if they f*ck something up, they are likely to keep such mistakes in mind in the future and thus it could warrant a few extra XP than usual). Other attempts might be less thought through by the players and the GM might even feel that it i necessary to subject them to an entire misfortune, or other forms of penalties like reduced PF, Acquisition tests or having components damaged due to accidents etc. etc. The point with Rogue Trader seems to make the scenarios and campaign as player driven as possible, so as a GM I think one should focus on letting the players try out ay attempt they can come up with, rather than saying: "No you can't do that" from the very beginning. After all, if you are doing the effort of giving the players as much choice in the matter as possible, it should be within your right to spring a little more nasty surprises on them (than usual) when you feel that the players haven't thought things through enough. In my opinion, the skill Evaluate could be very useful when trying to determine how much value you could get out of a salvage operation. Depending on how many degrees of success the one doing the evauating gets, the GM could reveal details of an estimate of how much profit factor they could recieve through a cursory salvage (basically looting everything from the derelict that isn't bolted down), they might also have the opportunity to acquire more PF than that if they decide to strip the vessel of all working machines and mechanisms, but the time and effort required might result in misfortunes and penalties to PF due to the amount of trips and extended stay in the void that would be necessary. It's gonna require more work and thinking on the GM's part, but it sure seems a heck of a lot more fun than the standard: "congratulations, you beat the boss on the wreckage, here's how much profit factor you get", wouldn't you agree?
  2. DM Variyn said: Did they just drive up fly in with their "guncutter" and salvage the ship? Well unless they have some high power tools on that "guncutter" they arent going to get much profit out of the ship. The plasma reactor, gellar field, core cog are all too big to be placed on a small ship and flown to their main vessel. Thats plain and simple It's not as simple as it seems. Remember that the wreckage in question is just floating in space. The only form of gravity in such a location would be the artificial gravity generated by the respective ships grav plates (which aren't that hard to disassemble). Once that is done, not even a big plasma reactor is going to weigh much and a guncutter would without a doubt be able to "tow" such a machine, or vital parts of it back to the holds of the PC's vessel. The size of the plasma reactor might provide some inertia (which would barey be felt unless the component in question is REALLY big), but that would just slow down the towing process, not stop it dead in it's tracks (unless the reactor is big as a small world that is). Apart from that, the PC' could simply use their own ship to tear out a large reactor by burning a large enough hole through the hull of the derelict vessel, attaching a bunch of chains to the reactor (yes, chains! Imperial space technology don't use much in the way of sci-fi tractor beams and such, they even use gigantic chains to tie large asteroids together ) and simply gun their own engines backwards and pull the reactor out. That's how I imagine a salvage operation anyway, and most of the fluff seem to support it. Granted, it would take a long time to hack up an entire vessel and transport all the components somewhere else and sell them off, but due to the absurd profit factor this scenario hands out, I don't think anyone would complain if it takes the better part of a year or even an entire decade of in-game time to complete. Anyhow, always keep in mind that the lack of gravity of a planetary magnitude does allow people to pull off pretty impressive feats when you think about it. Heck just look at the tugboats of today that are quite pathetic in size when you compare them to the gigantic super freighters that ply the seas, yet these small tugboats are able to pull and guide vessels close to ten or even twenty times their size safely to port, mainly because of the bouyancy that the water provides (bodies floating in water don't provide much resistance, even large bodies. Just imagine bodies floating in zero gravity )
  3. Tim Kelly said: or want one of The Great Traitor. Well, you might want an idol of the arch traitor planted in a strategic location inside the latrines, just to show your loathing against him everytime nature calls.
  4. DM Variyn said: But come on if everyone is bad then the war vs chaos would have already been lost. Hehe, no not really. You could say that the Imperium of Man is like a more "orderly" version of "bad/evil", while chaos is a more anarchistic version of "bad/evil". We are after all, talking about the same Empire that thinks it is okay to murder the population of entire planets just because a bunch of evil "free thinkers" are getting beyon the control of the ultimate censorship organisation (aka "The Inquisition"). So the fight that is: Imperium vs Chaos, isn't really a fight between "good" and "evil". It's more like a fight between two different evils, and no one is really sure of which one is the worst one yet. Still, that doesn't mean that all people living within the Imperium has to be evil or degenerate (even if a large degree of the population will be). There are two human responses to when things look extremely bleak and dystopic. Either they go with the dystopia and become degenerate and wicked themselves, or they imply grow tired of the current situation and try to make things better (or at the very least: not acting like an ******* all the time, because they come from conditions where everyone does seem to act like assholes, and they know how miserable the living conditions tend to be when everyone does).
  5. Lightbringer said: What I suppose I mean is that in some ways we have approached the Inquisition, in terms of their background, in a sort of bass ackwards way. We have started off learning all about their dark secrets BEFORE we know anything else about them! It's a bit like trying to piece together an academic history of the CIA by just reading conspiracy websites babbling about controlled demolitions, grassy knolls and exploding cigars. Yes, these things arguably play a PART in the CIA's history, but they don't define it. I see what you mean, but I'll extrapolate a little on the discussion anyway. There might be more people who experience the same issues as you have presented and it might be good for everyone if we somehow adress these issues to bring a little clarity to the matter. I get your comparison to the CIA but the thing with the CIA is that they are a pretty open and known organisation (as far as intelligence agencies go of course). I think the definition of the Inquisition IS the secrecy and cloak and dagger. The Inquisition is more likely like a few of these unofficial organisations in the modern world that doesn't have names or public faces and whose existence is mostly only known to their operatives and their benefactors only. Of course, people know (or at the very least: have heard) that the Inquisition exists, and that they are scary. But that's pretty much it for the common man. Any other aspect would just be pure speculation because of all the secrecy. In fact, the secrecy is most likely even spread out among Inquisitors themselves (because Inquisitors are, after all, DIVIDED by a common goal, not united). Sure, a senior Inquisitor Lord will most likely have learned of the more regular movers, shakers and operatives among his local conclave, but even within the same sector several Inquisitors might work "under the radar" without the conclave's knowledge. And when it comes to foreign sectors, not even the most prominent figureheads of the Inquisition will know much about their neighbouring conclaves. So I think that's the thing with the big =][=. The secrets and conpiracies ARE the Inquisition. There isn't much in the way of a known, formal structure with so many differing philosophies and opinions of how all the threats to mankind should be conquered. And also, a major difference between the CIA and the Inquisition is the fact that most conspiracy theories regarding the CIA is most likely nothing more than paranoid fiction, with the Inquisition on the other hand, most of the "theories" are actually true. Anyway, that's the picture I've gotten of the Inquisition. They seem to have some sort of hierarchy and structure, but they aren't based around a formal and proffesional kind of hierarchy and structure. It's more like a confusing web of debts, favors, double dealings and rival philosophies.
  6. Lightbringer said: I'd like to see a complete guide to the Inquisition that, for once, doesn't concentrate so much on the secret, behind the scenes conflicts within the organisation, but rather on their "puiblic face." Inquisitorial fortresses. Notable figures. Inquisitorial resources within the sector, public knowledge and perceptions of the Inquisition, methods commonly employed, etc etc.. Well conidering the fact that the Tricorn on Scintilla shoot down any traffic that might stray to close without proper identification I think that pretty much sums it up of what sort of "public face" the Inquisition has. If you're in the Inquisition, you might be privy to whats going on behind the scenes (i.e the different factions of monodominants, xeno hybrisists etc.) or you might be kept perpetually in the dark depending on what more senior agents wish to divulge. If you're not in the Inquisition, then the "public face" you will most likely ever see of the Inquisition is that it is an organisation made up of people that should be feared and avoided and when you do have the misfortune of encountering them you better stay out of their way and/or cooperate once the rosettes are flashed. And this seems to go for pretty much all Inquisitors, be they ultra puritan maniacs with a taste for pointing the guilty finger at everyone and have them burned at the stake, or radical Ordo Xenos Inquisitors who seem to like to dable a little too much with forbidden xenos artifacts, you'll generally not want to have anything to do with them.
  7. As for the authorization of sanctioned murder by the Officio Assassinorum, wouldn't approving these death warrants more fall into the job description of a veritable army of clerks belonging to the Adeptus Terra rather than the High Lords themselves? After all, the Adeptus Terra are mainly composed of servants, workers and underlings serving the High Lords, and I find it hard to imagine that the High Lords would bother with adressing and approving or denying each and every death warrant that must come to earth in their thousands each day. Wouldn't it be more likely that they have a large staff of clerks and officials who have to review and adress the multitudes of death warrants with a specific set of rules before they sign and approve of the death warrant or reject it?
  8. Nerd King said: Please, please find a way to finish it and post it - it sounds like you've done loads of work and it deserves to be seen by a wider audience. I'm particularly interested in the unorthodox structure. Please excuse the somewhat late reply. Yes I have done some work on my contribution but alas I couldn't get it done in time. But I'll be sure to keep all my notes and I'll finish it once I've had the chance to read up on what FFG has to write concerning Sinophia first (it has been hinted that we might see a description of that desolate world in the upcoming scenario for the Haarlock campaign). Since im not really bound by a timelimit anymore, I'd really like to try and integrate my scenario as well as possible with the eventual fluff that extrapolates on Sinophia rather than risking to step on the toes of canon.
  9. means said: He's an Assassin Gunslinger so his Knave of Pistols trait really narrows down his offensive choices Just as a tip: while the gunslingers might be prohibited from using Basic and Heavy weapons according to the rules, there's nothing saying that they can't get melee weapon training (if I remember it correct). So if you want to, you could spice up his gunplay by using swords, chainswords and different kinds of power weapons and such. After all, even a gunslinger will occasionally run out of ammo and might need a little oomph that doesn't need ammo.
  10. Sister Callidia said: Apocrypha got nice combat rules for multiple vehicle combat. But if it is just your guncutter and one or two fighter craft then I prefer a more detailed method. Just as the Spaceship combat does not just use the BFG rules. Personally I would prefer the rules to be such that we can use the weaponry found in the RT book. I mean, we have the stats for the likes of Autocannons and Lascannons, why not use them? Oh yes, if it was just a battle between a bunch of fighters, I wouldn't complain but rather stick with the apocrypha and use it. The problems arise when trying to see what happens when guncutters and void bombers start to interact with ginormous starships. To be honest, I don't really have a clue what type of weapons a starship use for defensive turrets. It could be Hydra flak cannons, but it could simply be lascannons with extended range as well. And also, how many incoming shots from the turrets would a smaller craft expect to face when closing with a starship? 4? 10? 300? The turret rating doesn't divulge any of the needed information, it just provides a penalty to piloting tests and if you fail there's two results: either you have to turn back, or you get blown to pieces. Fine and dandy if you want to be harsh, grim and realistic, but there's plenty of fluff describing ace pilots that dodge, yawn and roll through streams of starship turret fire and emplaced AA fire to achieve whatever objective they might have that brings them so close to the defensive guns of fortified bases or starships. So really: what could be more "Rogue Trader"-ish than a daring Void Master going alone through a hellish barrage of turret fire, deftly avoiding getting hit? To me, that sounds cool and dramatic. "Penalty to pilot test and either: turn back or be destroyed" however does not sound very cool and dramatic, just overly simplified but perhaps fitting for engagements between big starships. But there might come a time when the explorers need to go up against, or perhaps flee from a starship with just a measly guncutter or void bomber, and when that time comes I'd like to see some integrated, solid rules for it. GM fiat might be useful for several purposes, but quite frankly I have to say that I dislike having to fiat certain things in a scenario. In Rogue Trader, this would be one of them, and I think a lot of GM's agree with me on that one.
  11. It's not the GM's job to instruct the players how to roleplay their characters. The GM might be the master of the stats and rules of the game world, but how player characters act and what they say and what they think about different things is completely under the players control, not the GM. Also if you aren't having a good time while playing with this GM then he's the one doing a crappy job as a GM. Granted you might be the only one who feels that way in the group, and if that's the case then you might just not like that GM's particular style. But if complaints come from several players then there can only be one persons fault, and that is the GM. As a rule of thumb I'd say that a nice, fair and fun gaming enviroment arise when players dedicate time and effort to try to integrate themselves in the game world, and when the GM is doing his/her very best to insure that the players get to experience a good story and have a good time. From your description it doesn't seem like the GM in question has this in mind, and if that's the case then maybe he/she should step down from the position and let someone else take a shot at it. The GM position doesn't have to be cemented to just one person for all eternity. There is nothing wrong with taking turns to GM. In fact, it tends to bring a good deal of perspective to both players and GM's alike. The regular players who try to GM will know how hard it can be sometimes to try to run a game and make sure the players are having fun, and should take the experience to heart and act accordingly the next time they are playing and work with the GM at the best of their abilities. Likewise the GM taking the player role should take the experience to heart and try to isolate what the other GM's in the group might do better and what they do worse and try to improve his/her own style in the process. So my suggestion here is: if you feel that the GM is being a tyrant, talk to him or her about it. There's no reason to be mean or attacking the GM, but make it known that you aren't pleased with the tyrannical behaviour and style but that you are more than willing to play along and help create a good story if the GM in question just cut you some slack and try to respect your wishes instead of just fulfilling his/her own. //Varnias Tybalt - Player and GM for several years now, and I never dictate how players should roleplay, I just let the gameworld respond to whatever shenanigans the PC's might hatch.
  12. LuciusT said: However, it also contains some Radical stuff , like the Xeno-arcanist. To be fair though, Radical's Handbook contains some stuff that isn't particularly radical at all. I mean, what's so "radical" about the garrote for instance? Seems like a perfectly neutral assassins weapon without any particularly radical inclination. And whatever isn't radical is considered to be available to puritans. So the books kind of even eachother out in that regard.
  13. N0-1_H3r3 said: Depends on how big the vehicle rules are. The material accompanying a GM screen seems often to be minor supplemental material (the Alien Generator from Dark Heresy being a good example of this) - small things that can be collected together in a little booklet. Depending on how much detail (and how many vehicles - a set of vehicle rules which only provides rules for three vehicles will be complained about) the vehicle rules have, they may not have been small enough to put within the GM Screen booklet. True. But still, I mean could rules for vehicles really be that much more expanded than the Apocrypha: Vehicles that BI released? To me that seems like something reasonable to include in a booklet for a GM screen. I mean how many pages do the apocrypha take up? Anyhow, as long as we get to see some vehicles rules and integrating the relevant void craft to the starship combat rules someday, I'll be happy.
  14. numb3rc said: The Inquisitor's Handbook is not the "Puritan's Handbook." Everyone uses various types of guns. The only, only, entries in there related to Puritanism are incense, holy weapons, psycannon bolts, and maybe the witch lance and catechist. Those are small potatoes. Plus, there's nothing on the Puritan factions (which are covered fairly well in DotDG). What of the gear that the Thorians are secretly developing in their attempts to influence the soul as seen in the Inquisitor game? Perhaps a Puritan's handbook isn't needed but it definitely doesn't already exist. That's just the thing. Puritan don't have access to "secret weapons" and gear like radicals do, mainly because most of these are either heretical or of xeno manufacture that a puritan wouldn't use. Also you seem to forget that neither Radical's Handbook nor Inquisitors Handbook are intended solely as "gear books". You also seem to omit the fact that Inquisitors Handbook introduced an entirely new careerpath with heavy puritan undertones (the Adepta Sororitas) as well as the True Faith talent and with that expanded rules for using fate points in ways that neutral or radical elements of the Inquisition would never be allowed to do. Then there's the entire chapter devoted to superstition and religion and the "Life a an acolyte" chapter which alo focu more on puritanism thn radicalism. So I strongly disagree with your sentiments when you say that IH is "not" the "Puritan's Handbook"...
  15. N0-1_H3r3 said: Vehicle rules were, according to the designer diaries, a planned part of the Rogue Trader rulebook which got cut for space reasons. Given that the Alien Generator in the Dark Heresy GM Toolkit, and the expanded rules for Corruption in The Radical's Handbook were both originally going to be in the rulebook, but were cut for space, I can easily imagine that the elements cut from the Rogue Trader rulebook will find their way into publication at some point. Hopefully. Though from what I interpreted from the designer diaries it seemed like most of the work on vehicle rules had alreay been written. I wonder why they didn't just toss that in with the GM screen (it would certainly garner more interest to buy it, because GM screens aren't really a high priority amiong gaming groups as it is). In any case, I just want to see something done for it in the future.
  16. N0-1_H3r3 said: Tzeentch just plays the game, the outcome is of no concern, because when the game is won, the manipulation ends. From what I've read, the goal for Tzeentch is change. Constant and perpetual change. If the death of one of his/her/it greater daemon will bring about change, then so be it. So the earlier remark about having a really good poker face might not be the case. Tzeentch doesn't care much for either winning or losing, tzeentch just wants to keep the game going forever, with constant configurations and ruleschanges to it along the way. Just my own extrapolation on your post.
  17. ThenDoctor said: i would like a Puritan hanbook as well anyone else with me? No. Because the "puritans handbook" has already been released, and it's called the "Inquisitors Handbook". There are plenty of things in Dark Heresy that still needs to be adressed (The Calixis sector being one of them), and so far the Puritan side of the Inquisition have already gotten enough spotlight as it is.
  18. Graspar said: There's one more crew quality than item quality, some more work is needed. Hmm, how about going with the same trend as the availability modifier does? Just find the equivalent penalty for best quality and find the similar penalty but for availability and consult the next step above it concerning availability. Should give you a reasonable figure.
  19. RocketPropelledGrenade said: One thing about bombers you need to keep in mind is that each token in BFG represented an entire squadron. It would hardly be possible for a single bomber to do more than, say, 1 Hull Integrity a run. And I imagine the focus fire from turrets would be worse for a single craft than for a squadron. Bomber tokens could get diminished over time (depending on how many hits they sustained) which makes it quite easy to imagine that sometimes only a single bomber made it through, and yet one single bomber can in fact cause a lot of damage to a starship with a bit of luck and a large degree of skill on the side of the pilot. The point with using bombers and torpedos is to fly inside the voidshields of the target vessel and thus be able to inflict a large degree of damage since the voidshields are usually the barrier that soak up the most horrendous damage done to starships in regular combat. Also, I don't think the focus fire from the turrets are that bad. After all, all the turret rating do to a hit an rund test is providing penalties to the Pilot (Spacecraft) skill, nothing more. Why should it be much harder to avoid turret fire in a bomber than in a clumsy and awkward boarding craft? So I don't believe that focused turret fire has to be as "focused" as it is made out to be. But what I would like to know is how many turret shots can a bomber (or other type of ordnance type vessel) be expected to be subjected to when closing on a starship? Will the range be a factor? (i.e will the fire become more intense the closer you are to the enemy vessel or won't it make any difference?) How many hits from turret fire can different types of ordnance craft expect to soak up before they are crippled and destroyed? (will the "go boom!" on just one hit or do they have sufficient armour and perhaps local force field generaters making them able to soak up a certain amount of turret fire?). What sort of speed would ordnance craft have measured in VU's during each Strategic Turn? (I have worked up a few numbers as houserules myself, but I would like to see something official regarding the matter) I don't really care how "likely" it is for a single guncutter to actually make it through the barrage of turret fire when closing with a starship, and I don't want to have to GM fiat if the PC's attempting it are destroyed on the spot for even trying or if they manage to make it through. I want to see rules integrated with the starship combat rules but for smaller, non-warp capable craft and how they would function in relation to big warp-capable vessels, ranging from shuttles, lighters, guncutters, void fighters, landers, freighters and void bombers. It is currently the biggest gap in the Starship combat rules and I hope that it will be adressed with the first RT supplement that comes out after the GM kit.
  20. MILLANDSON said: The Apocrypha ARE the official rules, they were released as a free PDF by Black Industries. Im not sure I agree with you completely there. If the apocrypha were still intended to be official rules then surely FFG would host the same PDF in the Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader support sections respectively? Somehow I get the feeling that they want to re-do the rules for vehicles or something (especially for rogue trader since the rules for void craft in the apocrypha aren't compatible with starship combat at all). Granted the Apocrypha: Vehicles is the best source already released, but it would be a bit of a stretch to still call it "official" in my opinion. FFG have after all changed a lot of things from the original BI publications for Dark Heresy.
  21. Nerd King said: And in response to the point that DotDG wasn't *intended* as a Radical resource - I know it wasn't but it included details on sorcery, deamon weapons etc that could be used by radically inclined players. Which I still argue is more than the Puritan factions have got. Yes it COULD be used by radically inclined players, but there's nothing in the book claiming that the intention was to provide radically inclined players with rules for radical methods. For all intents and purposes the inclusion of daemon weapons, sorcery and these new psychic powers were probably there to provide the GM with tips and rules for making the "bad guys"... "Badder" than they were before. Also do note that many of the talents and traits described and sometimes needed to employ these radical methods (like sorcery for instance) doesn't include any rules at all for how a player character would have to go about acquiring the relevant talent needed (i.e there's no xp cost for how to get the Sorcerer talent, the talent is just described with no tangible way of achieving it in any careerpath). So could DotDG be used to provide radically inclined players with radical powers and weapons? Of course (just like any sourcebook describing rules for xenos weaponry could be used to provide PC's with "radical" xenos weapons). Was it the explicit intention of the writers to do that? No not really. The title of the book in question does give away a lot of who the rules and new gear was intended for (i.e the enemies of the PC's, not the PC's themselves)
  22. Gregorius21778 said: Complete "World Sourcebooks" would be nice as well. Like 3 to 8 worlds covered in on book. I really really really would like to have more details about what is like on Dusk or Sinophia (yeah... have to buy "Cities of the Damnedn. Narf). This kind of sounds like the idea I presented. One big ass book for every subsector in Calixis (which of course covers most or all worlds located in the subsector in question).
  23. St. Jimmy said: Using the acquisitions chart, it would seem to be: Availability: By planet and skill of crew (Typically Scarce +0 on a populous world with a star dock) Scale: -30 (10,000+ men) Craftsmanship: By skill of crew So upgrading a crew's skill from 30 to 40 at Port Wander would be a profit test of -40 (-30 scale, -10 craftmanship) This is pretty much the same conclusion my group came up with as well in regards to upgrading the Crew skill of the vessel.
  24. Nerd King said: I disagree entirely take what the puritans got from The Inquisitor's Handbook (Sororitas, Redemptionists, Faith powers and a few other bits) - the equivalent would be the Ritual, Sorcery and deamon weapon rules from DotDG, Dark Pacts and Psychic powers from the main rules, a good number of teh careers and origins from the Inquisitor's Handbook (i.e. Astral knives, Reclaimator, etc) Xenos items and the Verminspeaker in Creatures Anathema. Added to that there's now a whole book about the Radical philisophies etc. We could do with more Puritan background, politics, faith powers, how monodominants manage without relying on astropaths, navigators (if they can) etc. I just think a lot of people think that the idea of playing "the bad guys" (walking the thin line of corruption etc) is cooler than playing the puritan. I think a well presented FFG sourcebook could change that. No, the stuff in Disciples of the Dark Gods wasn't intended for radical Inquisitors, it was intended as rules for the REAL bad guys of the setting (heretics, rogue psykers, daemonworshippers etc.) So you can't claim that DotDG was primarily aimed at radical Inquisitors, because that wa the job of the Radical's Handbook. Both books (radical's a well as Inquisitors) have the name "handbook" in them, this clearly hints that they are supposed to be sort of eachother's opposites, even if both of them do contain some information that does play a little on the other side (certain things in IH do skirt the edges of radicalism like the astral knives or Reclaimators, but there are things in Radical's handbook that aren't radical at all to use either, like many of the entries in Shadow gear etc.) Purita background, politics and faith powers have already been covered by Inquisitors Handbook and Disciples of the Dark Gods as well as the core rulebook. I don't see the immediate need for more...
  25. Avi_dreader said: Yes. We can kill Shoggoths with shotguns, but travel to the Arctic Circle for $1? Inconceivable! I just have to say that this line made me laugh.
×
×
  • Create New...