Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AllenVanDaele

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , León, Spain
  1. Bolded for emphasis. To me this is the main issue with DoS being calculated on the tens differential, and not in increases of 10. The disconnect (and lack of consistency, where passing by 9 might be worse than passing by 1) that this adds to the game is enough for me to not like the rule as it stands. Keep it as before. I seriously don't think it's such a big slog to calculate, specially if you do it in increments of 10 as mentioned upthread.
  2. I don't mind fettered, to be honest. It allows psykers to work on a common basis without an excessive amount of risk, and often fettered power reduces the effects of powers to where they're still balanced. The problem is that at higher PR's, fettered is sometimes enough to function without impediment and risk, so I'd probably go with something like fettered only generates psychic phenomena on a 00, or applying a -25 to phenomena rolls at fettered (instead of fully immune to phenomena).
  3. This might be an appropriate compromise, with perhaps a line or two about giving bonuses to certain tests if players use these manifestations in a clever way.
  4. I think that the opposed roll is meant to go towards the psyker , they are the ones using their minds as a weapon and are trained at it , no ? Yes and no. By virtue of having a higher willpower than the norm, it will usually go to the Psyker, and at high PR ratings, it makes it kind of a non-issue to win these contests. A Psyker with starting WP 45 (roughly, it's not so hard to get), who has increased it to +20 (so, 65), with PR 5 casting at push (+3 PR for a total of 8) is rolling the opposed roll at 95 WP vs. whatever the enemy has. Even really powerful enemies range at 55-60 in their WP scores (for example, a herald of Nurgle has 58 WP). If the bonus to the focus power test from PR wasn't included in this, the opposed roll would be 65 vs. 58. Still advantageous to the Psyker, but not quite as much as 95 vs. 58, which makes some Psychic powers too good at endgame levels. Because it doesn't scale properly (unlike PR, specially as soon as you toss in Unnatural Attributes), and because it puts too much emphasis on Willpower. You already use WP to cast, resist fear, overcome certain effects... Power effects being limited by PR (which cannot be increased as easily as WPB, not starts so high) is a better mechanic.
  5. Good suggestions overall. The suggestion of a "utility" discipline including previous minor powers that give extra utility is really good. Perhaps this utility discipline can only be used at Fettered power levels, to represent its low power scale, too? I'd say one thing that slightly bothers me from a mechanics point of view is how the focus power is tied to opposed rolls. With the bonuses to the roll from Psi Rating, it means that most opposed rolls will go to the pysker's side, specially at high levels. This has been an issue in previous versions of the 40K RPG's, and I unfortunately don't see it changing if it's kept this way.
  6. That dire avenger killing or nearly incapacitating 6 guys in one turn of shooting is something my eldar-playing friend would love to have in his army. That clearly needs some rebalancing. Also, am I the only one that finds a krak grenade only causing some fatigue and agility decay too poor? (Not to mention that a krak grenade with Pen 0 seems counterintuitive. Was it supposed to be a frag?). As usual, thanks for running these tests, AlphariusOmegon.
  7. Hordes are a bit of a problem. The number 1 issue is the fact they are boring, but their damage is probably the second most important issue. The idea is clearly that they are meant to chip away at the characters, but what they tended to do was "2 Damage, No Damage, 2 Damage, Oh, 28 Damage... erm, Critical Damage 5 on the head." Lynata is actually right that most of the elements of Unnaturals could have been resolved by simply making other changes. Things with extra resilience could have had extra armour, or a note of extra toughness bonus. Things that hit harder could be noted as having a bonus to their damage (I am not convinced of using Natural Weapons as the way to do this, except for those that have inbuilt weapons, as it will not add to wielded weapons, but a note saying "This character adds +x damage too all melee attacks" would be sufficient). If you want to give a straight bonus to checks, then there is little reason not just to give a flat increase to the characteristic. Basically Unnatural Characteristics are a shorthand for doing all of the above, and due to the way they work have certain inflexibility to them. By splitting them up you can gain flexibility , which can also make it much easier to balance things properly. The only thing about Unnatural Attributes that isn't included in anything else is the "bonus degress of success in an opposed check", which 1) was the one that is most difficult to adjudicate on it's mechanical effect 2) there isn't anything stopping it being split into something else on its own. Still not convinced it isn't a useful thing myself, but I can certainly see the arguments against it. Borithan pretty much summed up what I was trying to say, which perhaps wasn't too clear in my post above. When I said that "what natural weapons does X have?", what I meant was that, for every creature you design, you'd have to give it its own "special natural damage", be it a daemon prince, a carnifex, or whatnot. Also, as Borithan says, that still wouldn't cover manufactured weapons. So it would be a system where, for each creature, you're creating its own rules, particularly when it comes to damage (hence my referring to it as exception-based design, as opposed to a single rule, Unnaturals, which works the same way for everyone). I agree that Horde mechanics can be swingy (personally, I'd have added +1D5 damage per every 5 mag, instead of 1D10 every 10, to allow for a greater fine-tuning of each situation), but in my experience, they are an abstraction that works quite well for what it's designed to do (allow minor enemies to be threatening, while the PC's can mow through scores of them at a time without bogging combat down too much). Righteous fury for Hordes is a non-issue if you use exploding dice, as only characters with Touched by the Fates can get RF under that system (and if you don't use exploding dice and use the BC/OW rules, there are no exploding dice anymore, so again, a non-issue). I assume this is what you mean by exploding dice being a problem, and why I don't see it as too inconvenient. Hordes are dangerous, as they should be. The unnaturals system obviously has its quirks (like the stone you mentioned), and works best when you use its latest iteration (additives instead of multipliers, 10's on damage rolls cause 1 point of damage if they would cause none), like pretty much any other system, and there are probably better ways to do things (perhaps having SB and TB scale non-linearly as you suggest, which would also reflect the tabletop somewhat better, as a difference of one point of Toughness on TT is actually supposed to be a big deal in terms of what that stat represents). All this being said, I stand by my original point, and the one that goes along the topic of the thread: to me the alternative provided on the new 2.0 ruleset (uncapped stats, no unnaturals) is worse than the solution on the current 40K line (capped stats, Unnaturals). I think that we're starting to veer offtopic with the discussion pro and against Unnaturals, though, so if you want me to expand something, or you want to speak more on the matter, I'll be happy to continue over private messages or in another thread, Lynata .
  8. But you don't have to break the d100 scale by making someone (or something) way stronger than humans if you simply come up with a proper scale and keep to it. Remember the example characteristics table from the original Dark Heresy core rulebook? In a game where natural human Strength can reach from, say, 20-50 (the latter number representing those uncommon exceptions from the rule), how could a creature with Strength 60 or 70 not appear "exponentially stronger"? Or, alternatively, let me re-phrase my earlier argument. What exactly is it that you want to depict here? Do you want the creature to easier succeed on Strength-related tasks? Then go for a direct stat increase. Do you want the creature to simply hit harder, but not necessarily more often? Natural Weapons trait. And you are really okay with player characters hovering between "not a scratch" and "instakill" rather than something in-between? Because I don't think this would be most players' comfort zone, unless I am really bad at gauging opinions. Not to mention that Hordes operate on a ridiculous level of abstraction, where a weapon which would be of no threat to the character magically becomes dangerous just because you suddenly have 10 guys wielding it instead of 9. Let's see, point for point... If I have a guy with Strength 40, on a 01-100 scale, a creature with Strength 60 isn't exponentially stronger. It's 33% stronger. If a creature rolls 1D10+Strength Bonus for damage, then the creature with strength 60 is dealing 2 more points of damage, which only comes second to the 1D10 damage being rolled (and here I'm assuming unarmed attacks, or in the case of WFRP2, most weapons). So no, 60 or 70 isn't exponentially higher. Now, for comparison, let's take a Hive Tyrant (from the Deathwatch Corebook). When said Hive Tyrant attacks, its Str is 60/x3, for a SB of 18. Compare that to the Str 40 human, and suddenly this guy is nearly 5 times stronger. If one were to arm wrestle the other, it'd get 3 extra degrees of success on its opposed roll, too (assuming it succeeds). Even if the human were somehow supernaturally strong (Str 50 or 60), the Hive Tyrant would still be 3 times stronger. If I want extra damage, natural weapons doesn't cut it. What natural weapons does a Daemon Prince have? What about an Ogryn? Or a Carnifex? Do we make those natural weapons stronger than a plasma cannon or power fist? It's rather clunky, and an exception-based design. Unnatural attributes however allow us to break the 1-100 scale without breaking the scaling, if you catch my meaning. Easier success on strength tests through increased stats isn't a good idea either. That's what situational mods are for. Lifting a tank, for a hive tyrant, should be an Easy task, at least, whereas for a Guardsman, it should be Hellish. Unnatural attributes don't require us to have a character with a 90-100% chance of success, which the alternative would force us to have (and if you don't believe me, check the stats for Greater Daemons in WFRP2. The Bloodthirster is mostly 90's). On the "not a scratch vs. instakill", I'm not sure where you've seen that, to be honest. Let's take a Mag 30+ of renegade militia with lasrifles. Lasguns deal 1D10+3, pen 0, which are increased to 3D10+3 by the horde's magnitude (the extra D10's cap at +2D10). On an average damage roll (20), your average space marine (TB8, 8 Armor points) takes 4 Wounds. Even a maximum damage hit will only deal 17 Wounds, which is less than the usual starting Wounds of a Space Marine. Meanwhile, if you're dealing with Guardsmen (or acolytes) as PC's, then why are you using Hordes anyway, and not single numbers of enemies? On the level of abstraction... It works for me, to be honest. Wounds are an abstraction. Toughness Bonus is an abstraction. It's not because I have "10 guys instead of 9 that the weapon starts dealing damage". Hordes don't start at 10 guys. Magnitude is an abstract measure, just as much as Wounds. 5 Genestealers might be a Horde with Mag 20. Conversely, 100 Heretics might represent a Mag 40 Horde. Magnitude is a measure of both numbers, training, discipline and any other considerations the GM deems appropriate. When those 100 heretics open fire on you, some of the shots will eventually go through the armor, hit a vulnerable spot, or simply get lucky. That's the increased damage for you. It is indeed an abstraction, but one that works. Uncapped stats on a 1-100 scale with a linear increase in power doesn't.
  9. *blinks* You liked Unnaturals? An awkward way of letting a character's stat jump gaps because it's a direct multiplicator of the base value? Not to mention the weird idea of having said character be stronger, but ... not really, because the test still looks to the base value? The talent that made DW Space Marines tougher than the powered armour they wear and forced counterproductive damage increases on their own equipment as well as enemy NPCs (-> Hordes), the thing that ultimately led to the "exploding dice" problem in that game where characters are at risk of either being not even scratched or killed within one or two attacks? I guess we'd have to disagree there. Unnaturals are at least just as wrong as uncapped max stats, and have been since their very first introduction in Dark Heresy... As for the "engine" itself, I still think that the d100 system is sound. Its problem lies with how it was pushed to the breaking point by various later supplements and games; there were too many ways to improve a character's chances of success and the gap between characters became ever wider, as the higher and more elite PCs eventually pushed into the area where success was almost guaranteed. In my opinion, the issue is entirely avoidable simply with a more "tame" approach. Otherwise, the problem would only be recreated in other dice systems. What would a change to, say, 3d6 bring if player characters end up having stats and skills beyond 20? Ultimately, the only way to deal with this is by either introducing more and more penalties to make the tests ever harder, or to simply reign in the excesses of higher and higher stats. Yes, I did like Unnaturals far more than the equivalent in WFRP2 (i.e, troll slayers and heroes who were stronger than Giants). It was a breath of fresh air by comparison, when I could have creatures that were exponentially stronger than humans in the fluff actually be exponentially stronger (or near so) in the game without breaking the D100 scale. The fact that BC and OW made them even more reasonable from a mechanical point of view, and not so clunky (multiplying could lead to some silly situations) was an added bonus. I don't see them forcing the system to use exploding dice to harm them either, because that's the point of Hordes if you wish to use mooks. They already deal a ton of damage (or just port the Righteous Fury from BC/OW. A 10 is a single point of damage if it would inflict none).
  10. Unless I'm mistaken, it's 95 (2D10+25 = 45, plus an extra 50 from the 10 ranks, bonuses due to homeworld nonwithstanding), which means that, for shooting, you either hit or the weapon jams. Still, it's quite bothersome. Random rank 10 acolyte has 95 Strength. How much does a Bloodthirster have, then? 150? 200? On a game that's scaled from 1 to 100? What about a Genestealer? 65? So acolytes are arm-wrestling them from rank 7 on? It's a terrible idea.
  11. Having stats reach up to 95 also completely destroys a d% base system, which usually start to collapse at around 50-70% base stat (fittingly, that's where high level marines where, so it's fitting as a standard cap). Just look at ranged combat; with 95 BS, the only way you can miss is if you Jam. You get to a point where the d% represents less than the stat and modifiers, a problem akin to what was seen in d&d with high level characters rolling 1d20 + 40-50, making the d20 itself nearly meaningless unless you decided to dump all your accuracy for more damage, something you can't do in DH. Indeed. One of the really good, solid changes from WFRP2 to the 40K lines was the inclusion of Unnatural attributes. Suddenly, you could have ungodly strong things who were head and shoulders above the rest (like a bloodthirster), instead of having max strength trollslayers who were stronger than giants. Moving back to uncapped stats, and the loss of unnatural attributes, is a really, really bad call.
  12. 1.5 as far as I'm concerned, or at least as cross-compatibility as possible while still adding new stuff. Action points aren't too big a deal (after all, if you translate the old actions into AP equivalents, they could simply be a streamlining of the previous system), but having radically different weapon stats, a different health system, etc. takes the changes too far for me to be interested in the swtich.
  13. Alekzanter said: Other than adopting the changes to Single Shot, Semi-Auto Burst, and Full Auto Fir from Black Crusade, I suggest against adopting anything else. It really is better to leave each game system (or each rule set) self-contained. But, if you do adopt melee changes from Black Crusade, then adopt all of them. But you'll have to read them several times and do the comparisons with Deathwatch, and I recommend you do some testing on your own before dropping it into your game. Melee combats will go one of two ways: they will be over far faster than you'd like, or they will drag on and on and on…and it's all left to the roll of dice, which you cannot control. Yeah, the idea would be to go all or nothing with them. However, the changes to swift/lightning attack seem like they can be problematic when fighting hordes (a good roll makes for a ton of hits on the horde), and against single, big enemies, make combat far more swingy (a character with the lightning attack talent will take 3 attacks in DW, which yields more consistently average results than the BC method, which makes it a far more "all or nothing" affair, even if, on the long run, the number of hits would be comparable, statistically speaking).
  14. Along the lines of this post (and sorry for the kinda-sorta-not-really-a-tangent), have many people adopted the changes to parry and melee attacks (i.e. swift and lightning attack)? I'm pondering to include them in my own games, but I'm still unsure of what their effects in actual play are.
  15. Kshatriya said: I don't recall a rule requiring signature wargear for the wolf pattern helm. I consider it a hot fix used to remedy the problem of most circumstances denying the use of a basic solo mode, which was a really stupid problem to write into the game in the first place. This was my reading too. In the campaign I'm GM'ing, I gave it to the Space Wolf after his kill-team took down a Hive Tyrant, as a reward for going beyond duty.
  • Create New...