Jump to content

Varnias Tybalt

Members
  • Content Count

    2,036
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Varnias Tybalt

  1. Can't say I've seen it myself. Although I've seen a few mock-up bolters and replicas here and there. I guess if you have the time and the resources to create a replica, it shouldn't be too hard to create one that fire's nerf darts.
  2. MILLANDSON said: Plus, tabletop game=/= roleplay game. They have to allow Greater Daemons to die in the tabletop game, same as how the C'tan can die in the tabletop game. I'd still not give them stats in the roleplay game though, as they are pretty much as close to minor gods as you can get. C'Tan are actual gods. Greater Daemons are just that, daemons, not gods. If Khorne himself decided to enter the battlefield it would be a different story, but a bloodthirster of khorne is not a god or even a minor god, just a really powerful warp manifestation. I don't agree that greater daemons has to serves as plot points rather than characters. Evil masterminds with fate points or perhaps servants of even more powerful and evil masterminds perhaps, but not unkillable demi-gods. Though considering the stats I'd give any greater daemon, the only viable tactic to actually "stop" such a thing would be the traditional "shoggoth approach". (hope to god that the monster in question is hiding in a cave, bring lots of explosives, light the fuse and hope that the collapsed cave/mine is able to keep the monster trapped forever)
  3. UncleArkie said: That said, having done swordfighting and worn armour at the same time I can tell you... You get tired real fast, real, real fast. That is so true. While I was a little out of shape back then (not that im particularly "fit" now either) I can tell ya that when I trained kendo and we got to wear armour for the first time I had to take a time out after sparring for awhile because I almost passed out. And you're not even wearing a "real" armour in kendo, just a helmet with a thick facemask, a curiass and a pair of thickly insulated gloves. But by god, the rapid pace you have to keep up with and also shout warcries with each thrust and swing of the sword added to the fact that the armour is usually a handmedown that stinks so you don't fancy breathing inside it too much, you will quickly feel the tiring effects of it all.
  4. Peacekeeper_b said: What are all the known abhumans? Ogryn, Ratling, Beastman (old school), Squats (old school) any others? Afriel Strains and Gland War Veterans are considered abhuman. Also I think scavvies could be considered abhuman too. Here's the lexicanum link for Afriels and Gland War Veterans: wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Abhuman
  5. the liegekiller said: i don't think anyone playing this game can reasonably tell me how or what a Tech Priest or the rest of the Mechanicus thinks with any degree of accuracy. If you know how a computer "thinks" and how a human mind thinks, I don't see the problem with imagining how a Tech Priest thinks. Tech Priests are still humans and not aliens...
  6. MILLANDSON said: Or not, given that that is the Cthulhu method of huge horrible creatures of death too. Sometimes things just can't be beaten by "mere" humans. The Imperial Guard consists of "mere humans" and they kill greater daemons all the time (at least in the table top game). Sure they usually use the assistance of psykers, several thousand of lasgun shots and probably the odd ordnance weapon here or there. But through cooperation and the use of heavy weapons, "mere humans" CAN KILL greater daemons, and this includes Lords of Change. As for the Cthulhu method, I have the rulebook for Call of Cthulhu and even Cthulhu himself has stats in that book. Sure the stats are ridiculously high and he'd probably be impossible to kill with weapons of the 1920's (save for the repeated barrage of an armada of battleships perhaps), but he still has stats. MILLANDSON said: And not having stats is sometimes sensible for a plot-relevent NPC. As soon as you give something stats, the PCs can kill it, and probably will. If they do that then I don't ee any harm in it. Intentionally refusing to give certain NPC's their own statsjust to keep them "immortal" smells too much of railroading in my opinion. Read through every pre written cenario that FFG ha released. Pretty much every plot-relevant NPC has their stats described and there's nothing stopping the players from shooting those NPC' in the head as soon as they see them. It's their choice to make, not the gamemaster's...
  7. Grand Inquisitor Fulminarex said: I play Eldar on the table top and do so well. Perhaps I am an alien. Well if you mean the table top strategy game, then im as alien as you. (Im a Necron veteran myself ) Though I really wish that GW could make a new Necron codex that is a little more compatible with 5th ed than the current one. (the tin heads became a little too nerfed for comfort with the 5th ed rules) However I'd like to see a new codex and some new miniatures for Dark Eldar first. They are currently the oldest army after all and they certainly deserve an update.
  8. Hodgepodge said: Although his ruling, if erattaed, would simply lead to every GM having to give their Mortitat a Lathe Blade and/or a Fractal Blade or watch them be badly underpowered against the few things that the Bloody Edge makes them almost competitive with a guy using two autopistols against, but anyhow... Uhm, what "competition" are you refering to? When the characters are in-game there is no such thing as a competition or being "competative" with people using autopistols. In fact, if the assassin in question disdain uing firearms or other weapons that would most of the time be more effective than swords or power sword then that assassin only has him/herself to blame if he/she happen to get gunned down by a thug with two autopistols. If the player choose to play an assassin that would refuse to use certain weapons then fine, that's the players choice. But the GM is in no way to feel constrained that the game has to be competetively "balanced" at all. Real life doesn't have any "game balance" and neither should a fictional setting...
  9. Knightmare said: Okok ... im used to 2nd Edition 40K ... things changed a bit since then Hehe, yeah they have... Except for the tyranid genestealers. They still **** Space Marine Terminators in close combat pretty easily... **** genestealers. (although I play Necrons and not Space Marines, but those bastard tyranids are friggin impossible to beat with Necrons)
  10. Katsue said: Well, if those are his rulings, then errata is required, because they contradict each other. In my opinion, power weapons just seem to fall into a grey area. However, I've noticed thatn when trying to work out inconsistencies like these you can't just stare yourself blind at game mechanics, but you'll also have to take an in-game and fluffbased look at it as well. Also you could look at it this way, let's say you have a moritat assassin originating from a primitive culture (like a Feral World), and who doesn't have any knowledge of the technology that powers a power weapon. The Assassin is indoctrinated into the moritat so it knows that it can only use weapons with blades, but not weapons that go "boom boom" or blunt melee weapons etc. Said assassin picks up a power sword and somehow discovers the "on" button. The blade fizzles and crackles and the primitive assassin think "ooh, shiny! Im keeping this. It has a blade after all so it's okay according to my religion", not knowing that the weapon could be considered infinitely more "modern" than any other sword that the assassin has ever used. To him, it's a sword. Granted a sword that somehow seems to be able to slice through armour with ease, but still, it's just a sword.
  11. Dalnor Surloc said: I think you'd need to be more narrow. For example Solex Disiples of Thule Why? I mean consider a real world racist and KKK member who hates black people. Do you think he/she would make a distinction if a black person comes from New York or Nigeria? Just sayin'
  12. DocIII said: One has mastered the subtle art of railroading when the players think it was all their own idea... Perhaps, but I disdain such manipulation. I used to be a pretty manipulative person in the past, but that just made me feel lonely and a lot more arrogant than I am now. I prefer to make the proper preparations for scenarios but then stick to the rules as often as possible to keep things fair. Hence my method of going about would be to prepare stats for a Lord of change on beforehand, instead of just arbitrarily fudging dice rolls and their results as I go along. The players (who incidently are my friends as well) desreve to know if I intend to basically throw all the rules out the window from the get go, and it is rather tacky and unfair to keep up the pretence of using dice rolls and a rulebook when you're really just arbitrarily making up the results as you see fit. A skilled GM doesn't have to use GM veto too often in my opinion. A skilled GM has all the relevant stats and preparations finished before the scenario starts and can with confidence stick to the rules without having to fudge results and railroad the players.
  13. Grand Inquisitor Fulminarex said: It is a role playing game and you play a role. I like the Eldar, and I do not think it would be difficult for an experienced role-player to play one. I am not considering ever letting a player play a maxed out Eldar psyker; but what harm comes from playing an Eldar Corsair or Exodite wandering the Expanse with a Rogue Trader group? I see no harm in it at all. My opinion is that Eldar would be the only Xeno's race playable. Personally, I disagree. Letting a player play an eldar spoils the illusion of their alien nature for me. If I put a player's human face on the role of an eldar, the eldar stops coming off as "alien" enough in my opinion. There is no player capable of competently portray an eldar and be convincing enough. It's hard enough as it is for a gamemaster to portray them as NPC's, and that's usually just small passing moments of portrayal in most cases. Having an eldar as a "regular" role in a campaign will ultimately fail to be convincing. That's the harm I see in letting players play eldar characters. In my campaigns, players have to stick with humans, because with humans I know that the players can easily relate to their fictional counterparts a lot easier than trying to grasp and portray the alien mind of an eldar. To put it simply, in my games, Eldar aren't a "race", they are an entirely different species. If such a character were to become a regular cast member in the campaign and also portrayed by a player, that illusion would disappear. EDIT: Also I'd like to point out that my reasons for this are not because I dislike the eldar, its quite the contrary. The WH40K Eldar are one of the most interesting representation of fantasy elves in my opinion. I dislike the elves in Warhammer Fantasy and in Lord of the Rings as well, but 40K eldar are a different story, mainly becase they aren't portrayed as "basicaly humans but with pointy ears", but actually as an alien species. I like that portrayal a lot, and thus wouldn't want it to be spoiled by letting a player play an eldar character and thus put a too human face on the character in question.
  14. Velvetears said: When in doubt follow this age old GM's rule.. 1: Roll Dice 2: Ignore Results 3: Screw over players however you see fit. And if the players find out you're doing that, they'll become less inclined to play, because you're obviously railroading them...
  15. Inquisitor Renfield said: Did anyone yet mention that Karn the Betrayers axe is made with the teeth of Mica Dragons? I can only assume a Mica Dragon is some form of WHFRPG Dragon.... It could. But it could also just be a really big lizard (sort of like the real world Komodo Dragon). The word "dragon" doesn't always imply that you're dealing with a mythical beast that can fly with the help of wings and shoot fire from it's nostrils, it can be something as mundane as a big lizard or some sort of dinosaur too. Just sayin'
  16. Sister Cat said: Drat! You guys are making mince-meat out of my happy little fantasy. Where's the horror in "alien thinking" if we can't even understand our own thinking rationally? *sigh* *grumble, grumble, grumble* No we're not, and here's why. Even if we don't understand the supposed "logic" behind human behaviour, all humans are at least familiar with human behaviour. A sort of empathic "understanding" if you will. I mean, at times we might not be able to understand or even being able to rationalize why spouses cheat on eachother, or why homosexuals are attracted to people of the same sex rather than the opposite. That is if one is a heterosexual like me. Im in full acceptance of their sexual preferences but I can't understand what certain guys find attractive in other guys because in my eyes, guys are... Well, a little "disgusting" in appearance. And at the same time I can't relate at all to why heterosexual women find men to be attractive. But I know that it happens, I know that its human, and if I listen to their explanations to why, while I might not be able to understand why they feel what they feel, I can sort of connect in a way that they experience the same feelings I do in relations to the opposite sex. So there's at least something "familiar" with humans, even when their behaviour doesn't seem to make any sense at all in our subjective opinions. But when you bring alien lifeforms into the equation, that sense of familiarity is gone. The only thing a human would fundamentally have in common with an alien would be that they are both "alive", but that's it (and with certain aliens, not even being alive is a sure thing, just consider Great Cthulhu). That's where the horror is. The complete lack of familiarity, combined with the knowledge that the alien in question isn't just a "dumb animal" that is trying to eat you (sort of like a bear or a lion), but it most likely possess the same if not superior intellect to your own, yet it still yearns for yours and your entire species destruction and suffering, and most of the time they are quite capable of achieveing that goal.
  17. Sister Cat said: Heh, heh ... okay, so I'm open to situational modifiers on an individual basis. I agree that a machine would not suffer such penalties, and that there might be other scenarios that didn't warrant the penalty. I was speaking, more specifically, of the acolytes themselves ... and any other reasonably-sane humans that were not also all-but-invincible. Ah, but that's just the thing. In comparison to certain enemies, acolytes can actually become all-but-invincible on higher levels. Especially when they start getting their grubby little paws on Power Armour or when the Techpriests decide to go Mechanicus Secutor on themselves and purchase implants like the Machinator Array and Mining Helot augmetic and Dragonscale Armour etc. (my first techpriest went that route and he sure became hard to injure after awhile). So rather than going through the ardous task of adding a bunch of disclaimers to certain talents and traits regarding if someone possessing said talents/traits can "ignore" being in melee with someone for the purposes of shooting at other targets during combat, I'd rather settle with just giving the melee aggressors a bunch of bonuses and "attacks of opportunity" on someone who don't even bother to pay attention to what the aggressors are doing in order to take pot shots at targets several metres away instead. Sister Cat said: Besides, in my upcoming game, even a pathetic heretic with a knife can be a danger, even to a badass in full power armor ... since I allow all baddies the opportunity to invoke "righteous fury", as well as the characters. One lucky roll and, oops! That's got to hurt! Just sayin' ... Oh yes, I certainly agree with that. A pathetic heretic with a knife should pose a threat even if you're wearing power armour. Or at the very least, SEVERAL pathetic heretics with knives should pose a threat. In my games I've ruled that there is nothing stopping a mob of enemies that are "too weak" to injure the acolytes from simply rushing the acolytes and thus get a bunch of bonuses to Knock Down tests, and then proceed to simply strip the armour off the acolytes bodies if the enemies notice that their weapons can't harm the acolytes while they are still wearing armour. Being outnumbered should be dangerous, regardless of what armour you're wearing. The same goes for shooting at someone other than the one you are in melee with. If you don't make any efforts of defending yourself, you will get hit, and depending on how smart your aggressor is, being hit could result in ending up on the floor with a crazed lunatic trying to tear off your helmet and gouge your eyes out.
  18. To put the discussion to rest I went ahead and sent in the matter to FFG's rules questions department. Here's what Ross Watson said: No, the assassin does not need to test willpower to use a power sword or power axe. I think that settles it. Moritat assassins can use power swords and power axes without having to take the WP test, BUT they do not get to benfit from tearing when using these weapons (as I said all along).
  19. Sister Cat said: That seems fair to me. A free attack at +20 against the shooter, with no ability to parry or dodge. I still think I would impose a penalty to the shooter's own attack roll though, because of the distraction of having a large angry bug buzzing around scratching the paint on Varnius' shiny new power armor. Okay, but what if the shooter has the Auto-Stabilized trait or something similar? From the description it seems like those things should be able to ignore annoying bugs scratching paint of the armour when shooting. The same could go for characters with the Machine trait or From Beyond trait or why not just a simply Rite of Pure Thought? In my opinion, there are just too many potential talents and traits that would reasonably contradict that the shooter would become "too annyoed" by a melee fighter that don't even have a chance to actually damage the shooter enough to actually become penalized while taking the shot. I mean, take an example from the Terminator movies, if the T-800 were aiming and has the intention to shoot someone 20 metres away, would the T-800 reasonably get an "unsteady aim" or become "annoyed" if a four year old kid started to bang at T-800's leg? The T-800 would most definetly calculate that the kid can't cause any significant damage to it and thus probably ignore or at least down-priprotize the kid until after he has shot the poor guy standing 20 metres away first. So to summarize: I have no problem giving melee aggressors "free attacks" with bonuses and such if the shooter choose to ignore them, but I can visualize just way too many contradictorial scenarios to justify that the shooter should suffer penalties for shooting "out of" melee.
  20. Polaria said: Now take a moment to think of this: If human race is this complicated while being perfectly "logical" within its own parameters of behaviour how strange exactly can aliens go? Exactly. And also, not even human behaviour is logical and comperhensible sometimes, even within it's own parameters. Psychologists would disprove of course, since most of them think they have it all figured out (take Freud for instance, who didn't have any scientefic evidence at all but for some reason he just came up with the idea that everything we feel, do and react to has something to do with sex and our parents... And sometimes it don't), the same goes for all those extreme fans of Charles Darwin who believe that all human behaviour has something to do with the needs of evolution and that all human thinking and actions goes along those lines all the time. They are wrong in this regard as well, because humans frequently make choices and commit actions that are evolutionarily illogical (suicide before procreation for instance, or how about homosexuality?). None of these phenomena "makes sense" from an evolutionary perspective. Now some people might argue that people who commit suicide or are homosexual are "sick" or "deviant" in some sort of way, and thus cannot be expected to follow the established and recognized guidelines of evolution. Quite simply, they fall back on a highly unscientific naturalist argument: "They aren't natural, they are going against the natural order" etc. The thing is, if one is supposed to stick to being impartial and scientific, you can't argue naturalism. Because no one really knows what's natural and what isn't. For instance, many historical finds seem to indicate that homosexuality existed as early as the bronze age and even the stone age, yet the naturalists seem to be of the opinion that homosexuality is a "recent" abomination against nature. There has also been witnessed of homosexual behaviour in other primates as well. Then there's also the fact that humans are a byproduct of nature just as much as chimpanzees and orangutangs are, therefor there can't be any human behaviour that could reasonably be considered "unnatural". After all, how can a species "created" by nature ever be "unnatural"? We can destroy the enviroment and blow ourselves up with atomic bombs, that still doesn't make our behaviour any less natural than a bunch of chimpanzees flinging poo at eachother. So in essence you could say that many humans exhibit an extreme arrogance when they think that they can decide what behaviour is natural and what isn't. It implies that we actually understand the motivations of mother nature, which is an impossible undertaking. We can witness effects of nature and invent reasons and deductions for why things happen in nature, but we can't claim to "understand" nature or rather what nature "wants". That is, if it is even capable of "wanting" anything at all. Natural forces don't seem to exhibit real motivations for doing anything, they just are. You could as well ask: "What does gravity want?" or "What does magnetism want?" Anyhow, in an attempt to show that im not digressing here I thought I should reveal my point with all this. The point is, if not even the most sophisticated disciplines of study and science are sure about the "logical" aspects of human behaviour or even the parameters of what constitutes as reasonable or unreasonable behaviour in humans. We can only imagine who difficult it must be to understand the behaviour of alien lifeforms who have evolved with a set of completely different parameters than our own, which we aren't really sure about either.
  21. Graver said: On anouther note, I'm glad you were able to see the reasoning in using the rather esoteric term "Lfit." Judging from your ready acceptance of my explanation, I think you very well might be the right person to help me out with a bit of a problem I'm having. You see, I'm heir to the Somlain Throne though I have been forced to flee my home country and live in exile here in the United States. However, I still have loyal servants in my homeland who have secured most of my wealth but are unable to send it to me for doing such would surely give away my hiding place to the pirates who stole my home and country. I believe you are an honest individual and could help me greatly and I would, of course, reward you handsomely for your assistance. You see, if my servants could transfer a portion of my fortunes into your bank account, i can then collect it from you and the pirates would be none the wiser about my hiding place and, for your trouble, I will leave you with one million dollars. All I would need from you to begin the process is just your bank account number, the banks routing number, and a few other bits of personal banking information. Together, we will thwart those Pirates and make you a rich man in the process! Graver dearest, is there a particular reason for why you're pulling the OP's leg?
  22. CanadianPittbull said: ROTFL!! This made me howl with madness! And I can only hear this being announced by Blackadder himself. Hey, I was just about to suggest that the Emperor might actually BE one of Edmund Blackadder's descendants.
  23. PGMason said: I definitely think the squats have a place along with the other abhumans. Though their homeworlds were destroyed by the Tyranids they were common enough on board ships, in military units and in the service of the Adeptus Mechanicus that there's lots of scope for them to still be around, and the unique nature of inquisitorial acolytes or Rogue Trader crews makes them perfect PC material. That's your opinion and it's perfectly viable. I just disagree with it. And in effect, my games won't have any Squats. They are all dead. In fact, as far as my games go, they never even existed in the first place (and there's only one or two guys in my group who actually know that the Squats used to exist in 40K fiction, and they don't like the concept either so Squats will certainly not be missed by anyone in my group) PGMason said: Fantastic roleplay potential as well - they've lost their homes, and only a relative few may be scattered throughout the Imperium. They'd make tragic figures with only their cultural stoicism to keep them going. That's not very exclusive to Squats in my opinion. The Tanith First and Only (aka Gaunt's Ghosts) also lost their home during their founding, and they are normal humans. If one wanted to roleplay a character that has lost their home in my game then it's easy enough to just pick a human world and a human character. I'll even be gracious enough to let that human character be of a rather short and stocky build if the player wants to. But im not gonna have any mentions of Squats or Demiurg or any of that nonsense. The Squats were written out of the official fluff for a reason, and I agree with that reason. Of course, it's not gonna stop anyone else from allowing Squats as PC's in their games if they want to, but in my campaigns: Squats just don't exist, Period.
  24. Katsue said: There's no basis for such a ruling. The rules for The Bloody Edge read "they must pass a Hard (-20) Willpower test to use any weapon lacking an "edge" in combat...However, such is their deadly artistry at bloodletting, any edged weapon wielded by them counts as having the Tearing quality...". If they don't inflict Tearing damage with power swords, it can only be because it lacks an edge, in which case they have to make the Willpower test to be able to use them*. The basis is clear enough. Moritat's can't use weapons lacking an "edge". Though "edged" weapons even encompass really far fetched examples (like arrows and bolts for bows and crossbows). Power swords don't lack an edge, they have an edge and are designed as a normal sword. BUT according to latest rulings from FFG, Power Swords won't benefit from the Tearing quality normally applied to edged weapons used by Moritat's. That doesn't take away the edge from the Power Sword, it just says that it won't get Tearing. Thus Moritat's CAN use power swords without WP-tests because they don't lack an edge, it just doesn't get to benefit from Tearing at the same time. Katsue said: Also, your assertion that the Moritat are not intended to be elite swordfighters is contradicted in numerous places by the writeup of the Moritat, and in particular, the Moritat Reaper. The Moritat background package doesn't mention anything that all assassins belonging to the Moritat cult are intended to be "elite swordfighters". In fact, the only mention of preference for weaponry is listed under the "Bloody Edge" trait, and all it says is: "the Moritat disdains modern weapons as crude and spiritually unfulfilling, prefering instead the sacred edge of the blade." Many weapons have blades and edges, not just swords. Be it knives, throwing knives, swords, sabres, bayonettes, stilettos, throwing stars, axes, meat cleavers, chainsaws (or "chainswords" in the case of 40K), certain arrows and crossbow bolts etc. etc. These are all viable weapons in the eyes of the Moritat, and the cult description doesn't mention anything about: All Moritat assassins are leet swordfighters. Of course, it doesn't mean that they are "bad" with swords, it just means that they don't use swords exclusively but a wide assortment of bladed and possibly serrated weapons, because it is pretty useful when it comes to spilling a lot of blood. (which their cult is explicitly all about, even the Moritat Reaper rank mention bloodletting as being extremely important for the cult in question) Even the description for the narrow and specialized Moritat Reapers don't even mention the word "sword" at all, it only mentions "blades". And blades can come in a wide variety of designs and methods of application. The Moritat and their Reapers are about bloodletting, not swordfighting...
  25. Col. Orange said: Would anyone here allow players to choose any of the other Human sub-species? Squats: +5 WS, +5 Tough, +5 Will; -10 Agility, -5 Fell Ratlings: +5 Agility, +5 Perc; -5 Strength, -5 Tough; (Scrawny) Ogryn: ...no chance. I would. But not the Squats. Games Workshop wrote them out of the canon for a reason and I don't wanna see them back in my campaigns. Ratlings and Ogryns on the other hand, while they might demand some rules tweaking, will be fine.
×
×
  • Create New...