Jump to content

Naviward

Members
  • Content Count

    249
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Naviward

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -
  1. I'd definitely support this. We've been running a couple of dark heresy games for a while now using this system and it works perfectly well.
  2. Fair enough, I vaguely remember those posts too. I'm guessing that the beta forums are long dead though. It'd be interesting if anyone did fancy running the numbers again though, as I'm fully prepared to be proved wrong on this. As a little aside, if anyone does go down the DoS vs DoS route, make sure to apply the dodge bonuses for cover from the skills section of the book, as you want to make sure that dodgers can get situational bonus much the same as attacks can.
  3. I currently run 2 Dark Heresy games, 1 Rogue Trader and 1 Only War game that all use this approach. In addition to this, we made a few additional adjustments:- * As it made dodging slightly too hard, we brought in a talent called Evasive (might have been from the old beta) that gave you another DoS on a successful dodge. * Walking fire had to allocate DoS from their attack pool onto each opponent, making hitting multiple opponents easier for them to dodge rather than overwhelming one with fire. * Blast weapons allocated their DoS to each person hit, giving them an advantage for hitting tightly packed groups over full auto weapons (blast weapons were under used before this) * Flame weapons rolled to hit then worked like blast weapons rather than using agility to dodge (this was probably the most debatable change) This seems to make it all balanced out well, making the combats fun without high level fights turning into a dodgefest. cps, I'd be interested to hear what it was about the maths that didn't work for you.
  4. The way we play it is that for opposed rolls we look at the difference between the two rolls as the final DoS rather than what the player rolled. So in the above example it's a tie (we do a stat check in ties to pick the winner, who then gets 1 DoS), so the failure condition doesn't kick in. In another example, The player gets 1 DoS but the NPC is fantastic and gets 4 DoS. That's a comparative 3 DoF, so the failure condition kicks in.
  5. A lot of good ideas in this thread, we'd already house rules overwatch in our game, but I hadn't realised that overwatch was as broken as this. The way we play it is that overwatch takes 2 full rounds to set up, the first round setting up the overwatch and then the second (and subsequent rounds if required) maintaining the overwatch. It's still very powerful but gives everyone a round to run for cover, out of the arc of fire or just to shoot up the defender in response to the initial setup, which seems to work well (and obviously if the overwatcher moves, changes arc or dodges they have to go through the 2 round process again).
  6. Thanks for all the responses, there is always the conflict in these sorts of things between the realistic approach (like people have said, Stunning or having them react randomly) and the game balance approach, which is to make it at best a weaker version of combat specific powers at the same cost/level. In the end I took Foxeru's approach and just said that in combat it's too difficult to apply as the opponents are so focus on surviving and killing the enemy. Oh, and as a side note for Lionus, Stunning does prevent dodging, so it really is a death sentence if it goes on more than a couple of rounds. The point about waking up after drinking is a good one though, so maybe something like having the target suffer -20 to all skill tests for PR/2 Rounds while they try to get back in the moment.
  7. I can see where you are coming from, but to me this seems way over-powered. It's one thing to use it occasionally to get out of a tight situation (accidentally starting a fight, then calming it down), but this seems more like the thing the psyker would do every round of every combat. Big Ork-Warboss enemy. No problem, just Erasure and pound on them for 4 rounds while they do very little. At most I'd argue the enemy loses it's next turn while it understands what is going on, otherwise it becomes one of the best combat powers in the game.
  8. But Warp Lock does say you can ignore Perils of the Warp? I can follow your logic if it didn't, but as written it does. That's what I thought, but rereading the talent, it allows you to ignore the Peril of the Warp result (76+) on Table 6-2 the Psychic Phenomena. It doesn't say anything about actually ignoring Perils of the Warp. Once per game session, he may ignore the Psychic Phenomena he has rolled (including the Perils of the Warp result on Table 6–2: Psychic Phenomena, see page 196), completely negating its effects.
  9. Deleted my comment as Asymptomatic basically said it better.
  10. To be honest, I'd argue the other way. The power doesn't say anything about ignoring a Peril of the Warp, it just lets you stop a Psychic Phenomena. If you let the phenomena resolve (which for 76+ would be roll on the Peril of the Warp table), it's already too late to then ignore it. It would be like letting the a player see how big an area the shadow of the warp (66-68) affected and then ignoring it if you don't like the result, which I would think most GMs wouldn't allow.
  11. One of my players has asked about using the Erasure psychic power in combat, to effectively confuse an enemy by deleting the last 10 minutes of their memory (so the start of the combat for example). Has anyone had this come up and how did you resolve it? Should the power even be allowed in combat given it seems to be more of a investigation type of power?
  12. I too felt that Leadership and Tech were undervalued attributes, especially as they don't apply to cheaper stat buy ups like the rest of the aptitudes and don't apply to many skills or talents. The answer in my game was to treat them as bonus aptitudes and give roles that get them a different non-stat aptitude that fitted (like Defence, Fieldcraft, e.t.c.). This way all characters always got 7 aptitudes (not including Tech and Leadership), and a few got Tech or Leadership as a nice bonus, but because it only applied to a few things, it wasn't unbalancing.
  13. This is exactly the rule we use to balance accurate weapons, and it seems to work nicely.
  14. I'm with AtoMaki, fettered, as it was, was open to a lot of abuse. Half psy rating was still too powerful. There are still various talents available to make the perils less likely or less likely to be powerful. Personally I think that better represents a psyker getting control over their powers while still allowing psychic powers to fit the background of always be a risk.
  15. I'm not sure I agree with this. Psychic power users can make other members of a party very quickly feel useless, which in my experience couples with them often being played by 'special snowflake' type players. Rules that hem them in are often a limiting factor that stop them dominating the party and ruining the game for everyone else. I agree with this. One of the problems with Dark Heresy is that psykers (and techmarines while we're at it) got access to things that only their classes could take, yet could pretty much do what the other classes did as well. This is made all the more difficult in a free buy system like DH2. It's not that this isn't workable, it's just that the advantages given by psykers and techmarines need to be costed (xp or influence) in such a way that the character should have to pick which to focus on rather than being nearly as good at shooting as the guardsman character while also having all the psychic goodness that no-one else can take. Dark Heresy 2 seems to do a decent job of this as the psychic stuff is a lot more expensive and the mechanicus stuff is more widely available. Back to the original point, looks like fettered is being removed as of update 6, which for me is only a good thing. If you want a totally safe option, use a gun or your own skills (something the psyker still has access to).
×
×
  • Create New...