Jump to content

Etepete

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Etepete

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Gothenburg, Vastra Gotalandsregionen, Sweden
  1. Lasers said: I don't know about you, but if my captain broke out into song and dance like Picard did, my morale would be instantly restored! The rule makes complete sense. "And that's why Perform is actually harder than using Charm. But picture a whole ship, every single crewmember, singing a hymn to the Emperor while engaging in battle with a Chaos Marauder, the decks vibrating from the sound. Tell me that's not inspiring." is more so; just look at that incorrigible bloodlust his voice incites. Khorne approves! I think it'd be more like ! Anyway, a house rule whereby Performer could supplant Charm but at one difficulty level higher would make perfect sense. Unfortunately the RAW is that you instead can recoup 5 points of morale or more for the duration of the combat. If you add the cumulative effect of DoS this seems _more_ powerful to me.
  2. Yeah, I think the last video was bang on the money when it comes to what that rule makes me envisage. I suppose it's just one single replaceable rule and i could just drop it (or better still - allow a Challenging Performer test have the same effect as a regular Charm test as per the Extended Action rules) but it just sort of strenthens that uncomfortable feeling that the skills and talents haven't really been synched with the ships rules. Millandson said: "Think of the Political Officer in "Hunt for the Red October" singing the national anthem and other inspirational battle hymns. That's what that bit means." I'm not saying it shouldn't be possible, I'm just saying maybe it doesn't warrant a specific rule. Using Performer to mimic the effects of a Charm test is fine, but the ability in question is actually more powerful than a charm test. I suppose it's a good excuse to let blast the Red Army Choir on full volume in the middle of the session though...
  3. On p. 84 in the core rulebook, under the Performer skill, you can find this charming little text: "The Explorer may make a Difficult (-10) Performer (Storyteller) or Perfomer (Singer) Test instead of Charm,..." "...when used to improve Morale,a succesful Test adds +5 to the ship's Morale, with and a additional +10 for every to Degrees of Success, for the duration of the combat." So you goad your armsmen to combat by singing a hearty tune? Something must be very wrong here. The other main Extended action style way to shore up Morale is the use of disinformation. I would have expected some sort of use of Command or Intimidation to achieve these results. Not the captain going "Don't worry about the invading orks, I hear they can't stand the sight of blood anyway, and here's a little piece I wrote earlier this morning..."
  4. Khazad Doom Only works in english though, I suppose
  5. Bad Birch said: Not to mention a bit of Nietsche (apparently, there's nothing he couldn't teach you about the raising of the wrist...) If you stare into the Warp long enough the Warp stares back at you? LETE: Both of them, probably. And organised religion in general.
  6. Lightbringer said: Oh yes, I agree, entirely. The Ministorum stuff was originally pretty blatant savage satire, really! But like most things 40k, a more nuanced and interesting approach has developed, which allows for all viewpoints on religion. In particular, Dan Abnett's stuff is broadly positive about the empowering effects of religion, whilst also allowing room for the humanistic concept that the Emperor himself was an atheist, and that the current religious situation in the 41st millenium is akin to a vast cosmic joke... Like I say, room for all viewpoints! I completely agree with your philosophy here: a multitude of possible themes, moods and viewpoints is certainly a very good thing! I've only read one book of Mr Abnetts/set in 40k: Titanicus. Is it considered any good? I think my main objection that would be relevant to this discussion would be that he mainstreamed the Imperium. The grunts on the ground felt a bit too much like just any soldier out of any fantasy or sci-fi or war-fic novel rather than the scurrying insignificant little serfs of a colossal empire run mad. I think I'll stick to my satirical (and chainsaw-equipped) guns myself, but I must admit that the "The Emperor is an atheist" angle has loads of appeal
  7. Polaria said: The whole 40 000 universe from the point of view of humans is like fascism on crystal meth (actually, let me rephrase it: fascism on far more crystal meth than they really used). Read the history of SS and skip all combat parts and suddenly you've got some very solid material for a really wicked Space Marine campaign... In the end it is not GW or FFG than makes the game come alive. It is the GM:s and their Players. No, you probably won't see much touchy-feely things going around. Yes, you will probably see a lot of blood and excessive violence. No, it won't let you play endless hours of romantic intrigue set in 19th centuresque palaces. Yes, it will (still) let you plunge into all the deepest, darkest reaches of human(esque) mind. Exactly! The deepest darkest reaches with the blackest blackest humour (on crystal meth) - that's the point. Grim Dark should be Paranoia meets Bad Taste meets Aliens. I completely agree that it's down to the group of players - it always is, I find. So the point is that this thread shouldn't be about whether Space Marines have feelings or not - the point should be, how do you handle them being evil, totalitarian killing machines? A lot of people will ignore it, but hopefully there'll be some goodies in there for those of us who don't. Lightbringer: Everyone has their own interpretation of 40k, of course, but I find it exceedingly difficult to see anything positive about faith in a religion that venerates a rotting carcas that eats souls. I believe that Games Workshop at the time when the background story was drafted, were pretty sceptical tof religion, and to be honest the Ecclesiarchy must be meant as a pretty vicious caricature of the catholic church. I would be more inclined to look for positive faith among Xeno's and Heretics. Personally, I would never play a 40k game without a bucketload of black, black humour - but in the end people see different things in the setting and I'm only talking about my own preferences here. Besides, if I had read more of the novels my opinion might have been very different (so I don't think I will).
  8. What I wonder is how FFG is going to tackle the fact that you are playing the actual ubermensch in a fascist empire? And I'm not being provocative here: I think they handled playing evil capitalists *** colonialists in an evil empire fairly well - one of the appeals of RT for me is the ability to play Henry M. Stanley with a space ship instead of a machine gun (not, of course, out of any appreciation for the man, but because it actually does what sci fi should do: comment on the real world. Pretty surprising for a game that's really about little hand-painted space-soliders... ). I'm not saying FFG should shove this message down the throats of the players: anyone who just wants to play guys in space-armour shooting stuff should of course be 100% supported in doing that. But for us who like a bit of kafka and orwell in our space orgies a little bit of byzantine totalitarianism would be very welcome.
  9. Mass Combat Rules v.01 These rules are intended for major engagements and pitched battles. For skirmrishes I recommend using the Simple or Detailed Method Mass Combat rules from the RT Rulebook. These rules are intended for larger engagements where player characters are directly involved. The rules rests on some assumptions that may or may not be valid for the scenario at hand, so the GM should feel free to amend the rules and set up alternate phases of combat to suit the situation at hand. Hopefully the rules will be simple and straight forward enough to make this a simple task. The Forces Each army consists of a certain number of units. A unit consits of soldiers of a certain general troop type: Tanks, Speeders, Cavalry, Infantry, Heavy Weapons. Often there is only one unit of each troop type - in fact multiple units of the same troop type should only be considered if the GM or players wants them to fulfill distinctively different battlefield roles. Each unit has the statistics and equipment of its average member and in all ways function like the units of page 292 in the Rulebook. N.b. that units in large armies will have massively larger Damage bonuses Wounds. War machines differ from infantry in that they have a set amount of Wounds per vehicle dependent on the vehicle type. A pair of Warhound Titans have a set amount of Wounds, not just 2 + 1 as per the core rules. Each army is headed by a Commander, which the title used for whomever is in charge of overall strategy and tactics. If the Commander is an NPC then the only important statistic to retain is his score in Command (and Fel). The Battle These rules starts when two forces are approaching each other ready for battle. Scouting and marching is best resolved through roleplaying and simple skill rolls. The Battle is divided into three main phases: I - The Set-up, II - The Combat and III - The Resolution. The goal of each side in the conflict through each of these phases is to amass as many Victory Points as possible. Victory Points are awarded for gaining strategic points and for battlefield superiority.One side has one the conflict when they have reached a pre-set amount of Victory Points. Their enemies then withdraw, in order or in a rout. The Set-up Roll an opposed Command (can be Assisted by Tactica Imperialis) roll to see who controls deployment and battlefield. The winner has the initiative (and begins the next round) as well as the tactical advantage. The Set-up roll can be modified by succesful ambushes, scouting endeavours etc., all of which are also rolled for or played out during the set-up face. These can both be bonuses to a friendly faction or minuses to the enemy - some of these actions can also grant VP:s. They should generally vary between 10 - 30 bouns/malus.Gaining the tactical advantage confers a number of VP, probably between 10 and 30. During the Set - up the GM describes the battlefield, indicating layout, landscape and different features, as well as describing the mood, the time of day and anything else that is of interest. The GM will indicate a number of strategic positions. These positions confer a number of VP:s to whomever is controlling them. The GM may want to scetch a brief map of the battlefield, indicating strategic positions and enemy forces. Strategic positions can be anything from heights to buildings to copses of wood. The final stage of the set-up phase. Both sides distribute their units across their part of the battle-field. PC:s (and important NPC:s) decide whether they wish to act alone, attach themselves to the HQ or attach themselves to a unit. The Combat Both sides take it in turn to advance their forces, starting with the winner from the Set-up phase. Each unit act in turn, going from one side to the other. If timing is important, each combat round represent roughly 5 minutes. The GM could calculate how far each unit can move in a turn, but in most cases it is enough to abjudicate that both sides are 2 or 3 rounds of movement from the center of the battlefield. Units can of course engage each other in firefights sooner than that. It is not necessary to track exactly where the unit is on the battlefield, just roughly what it does. During the Combat phase there are two floating bonuses: a VP bonus of 20 VP to whomever has the largest army (goes up to 30 for x2 army size, 40 for x3 etc), and a bonus of 30 VP to whomever has inflicted the most wounds. PC:s can fight alongside their units using skills such as Command, or act independently, scouting, sniping or challenging opponents to single combat. For the battle to be PC run, one PC must retain a position at the HQ of his side, issuing orders and deciding where the different units go. Other PC:s may attach themselves to the HQ, assisting the Commander and the Army through extended actions. PC:s in charge of a unit may still recieve "orders" from the commander (at least if he has a micro-bead) but is free to decide what his unit does himself. Once either side has reached a set number of VP, depending on the size of the forces gathered but normally around 100 VP, the opponent breaks of and flees. This ends the Combat phase and we now move to the Resolution phase. The Resolution The Victor may decide to either pursue his enemy or to consolidate his position. If he does the former, the GM may wish to set a few ambushes for the victorious forces as the fleeing forces attempt to fight back. You might even roll Command + VP vs Command + VP to see if the defeated Commander can rally his troops for a second Battle (in which the victor is automatically ambushed). If he pursues the fleeing force he may Massacre or Capture his opponents (see below). If the Victor stays to consolidate his position there is always a risk that his enemy may regroup to fight another day. Roll a Command test to gain an additional 20 VP for pursuing the fleeing enemy, DoS can increase the VP yield. The number of casualties on each side should be approximated through the number of VP:s on each side. 100% of the VP required to win should mean that 30% of the enemy forces are dead or injured. The GM can work out exactly what this means in terms of deaths, of captives and of injured soldiers left on the battlefield. If the victory is followed by a massacre, an additional 7d10 % are murdered. If the victor tries to capture his enemies, 3d10 % of the force may be captured like this. The defeated side inflicts a number of casualties commensurate to the number of VP:s they achieved. A defeated army that gained 50 VP in a 100 VP Battle before being defeated would have killed or injured 15% of the enemy force. A victor who stays on to consolidate his victory may allow the medical staff/PC:s to attempt a single Triage-style extended action. Every DoS reduces the number of fallen soldiers by 5% down to a minimum of 5%. If the battle formed part of an Endeavour, the VP:s may be cashed in directly for Achievement points. What are your thoughts? Too crunchy? It probably needs balancing. Looking forward to feedback!
  10. MILLANDSON said: Aye, Space Marines are sterile, and if you look at the pictures of naked Space Marines in Bloodquest, they have no genitals either, that entire area is covered with black carapace. Wow, this game is Siegmund Freud on crystal meth
  11. LuciusT said: I like Hull Integrity because it's "Wound Points for vehicles" which means vehicles use the same basic combat rules as people. As a GM, I like that because it means I don't have to have two different rules sets in my head if I want to include vehicle combat. Combat rules are complex enough as they are, IMO, and adding more complexity isn't helpful. Keeping everything using the same basic rule-set is a good thing. I couldn't agree more with the sentiment. I suppose what I should do is set down and create a general critical-structural hits system that is based on buying critical effects rather than rolling for them. Lacking that, I could definintely settle for keeping the hull integrity and dropping the structural damage charts.
  12. I think player groups should have every licence to go wild: - A religious sect venerating the ancient Saint-Captain that recieved the original Warrant of Trade, highly heretical. The Rogue Trader character is basically seen as his living embodiment. Membership of the "dynasty" means being accepted into the secret priesthood. - A conspiracy of murderers who killed the legitimate Rogue Trader and usurped his warrant of trade. One of them mascarades as the legitimate holder of the Warrant. The "Dynasty" consist only of the conspirators and those they deign take into their confidence. Some unwitting accomplices could also be part of the inner group. - What began as a mutiny has now transformed into a free democratic ship-board republic, vaguely tolerated by imperial authorities once they were confronted with the fait accompli. The Warrant of Trade is granted to the President of the Ship, who is elected for a 12 year period. On this ship, the entire crew is part of the "dynasty" - the PC group is most likely a mix of the Government officials and ministers, as well as representatives of other groups such as the Admech. - A strictly feudal Dynasty propping up an old and next to depleted line of Rogue Trader. His Excellency the Lord-Regnant-Captain may have one or two active relatives in the group, but most PC:s have sworn an oath of fealty and recieveced a noble title such as Constable of Arms, Majordomus of the Ship Council, Helsman Esquire and Councilor Elect of the Adeptus Mechanicus. But all in all, the sort of roman/mafioso/renaissance picture of patronage and la familia is probably the most common one.
  13. I'm having a peak at the Apocrypha right now, and here are my thoughts and suggestions for simplification and bringing it in line with Rogue Trader. I realise I might be in the wrong forum, but the goal here is universal vehicle rules that work for both games and do not take too much book-keeping. 1) Rather than Out of Control and Structural Damage charts a system use DoF for the earlier and a "damage points buy" systems for the latter. i.e. For Out of Control: Three Degrees of Failure indicates that the vehicle has spun around and lost of a speed band or two. Four degrees indicates that it has crashed . The vehicles spins once per speed band over cruising inflicting 1D10 DMG per flip. Five degrees indicates crash and burn and fate points to survive - NPC:s die. For Structural Damage: Any damage in excess of armour can be used to purchase structural damage results. The exact effect is up to the GM, but as a rough estimate: 5 points of damage: Loss of trivial function, force drive roll to avoid out of control, hit a random crew member 10 point of damage: Loss of non-vital function (i.e. weapon mount etc), start fire on board, hit 1d5 of the crew, spins out of control (DoF 4) 15 point of damage: Loss of vital function (i.e steering or engines. sensors), damage all crew members, kill the driver 20 point of damage: Just like Massive Impact. Alternatively the original 2 x Armour rules might apply, and the 20 point treshold is removed. 2) Do we need hull integrity? In my mind the reason why Voidships have hull integrity is because they're in space. If the hull starts breaking up people will be sucked into the void. The structural integrity of a vessel designed for travel within the atmosphere is reflected in the structural damage rules. For Aquila landers etc we still do need Hull Integrity I suppose. The question is whether to put it on a vehicle of voidship scale. I'm inclined to the latter: give it a Hull Integrity of 1 or 2, which can be lowered through reaching the 10 or 15 point damage treshhold. I.e. you can stop a lander or similar shuttle from taking off by blasting holes in its hull. 3) Speed. The question here is whether to employ an abstract speed score like the voidships do, or whether to retain speed as a measure of kmph and metres per round. I'm inclined to the latter since that will retain compatability with regular combat rules, and probably involve less book-keeping. 4) Space: maybe some land crawlers, cargo landers etc should have a Space score (of 1-3, realistically) for loading and unloading purposes. If nothing else, it might be an indicator as to how many of these are normally involved in a loading or unloading operation. The flip side of this is: how many rhinos or land crawlers fits into 1 space in the hold of a voidship. These are the issues and I ideas I can think of off the top of my head. Looking forward to your feedback!
  14. MILLANDSON said: Etepete said: An Ogryn is basically just an enormous human mutant, right? So any PC with the Hulking mutation could very well be an Ogryn? Ish, but not really. They are a stable human subspecies, rather than a mutant, and as part of being hulking, they are also very, very thick. If you wanted to play an Ogryn, you'd be looking at low Int and Fellowship in addition to the Hulking mutation. It'd be easier to do as a homeworld in it's own right (since they come from planets with specific strengths of gravity). But aren't abhumans just stable mutations? Anyway, you're right. And the origin "Tainted" doesn't really fit the bill either. I think homebrew homeworlds for Ogryn, Ratlings, Beastmen and even squats are the way forward until FFG releases something official.
  15. An Ogryn is basically just an enormous human mutant, right? So any PC with the Hulking mutation could very well be an Ogryn?
×
×
  • Create New...