Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Togath

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Texas, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. in which case it would make far more sense to not limit you to one sight per gun but rather to limit you to benefiting from one sight at a time. This is how guns work. It is not especially hard to have a laser sight and a scope on a gun, but it's rather useless to employ both at once.
  2. I have not been much around since the previous incarnation of the beta was torpedoed, but I have to agree with the sentiment that limited flexibility is dull. The flip side is that too much flexibility outshines most other characters specializations and skills. One way I have compromised is by having psyker characters describe psychic actions, particularly minor ones, but roll a more conventional skill test for them. This can also work in more major cases as flavour. An example would be the psyker in my current campaign that frequently describes bullets as bouncing off a telekinetic shield or shots mysteriously missing when his defenses or evade rolls succeed. If you are willing to risk the aforementioned balance issues rolling a skill check for a minor action, say willpower + charm for a minor disposition change created by mental manipulation or willpower + security for telekinetically picking a lock worked well enough in the first beta. These are judgement calls and workarounds more than suggested fixes, but they did a lot to alleviate the loss of the minor powers feel. Eisenhorn, Patience Kys, and Ravenor are all extensively defined by minor psychic actions in the course of operating as much as by cataclysmic powers. Patience writes a note by rearranging pores on her skin and Eisenhorn distracts sentries by enhancing their paranoia. This is what makes being a psyker cool. Shooting lightning is super fun, but not mechanically that much different than walking around with guns. Obviously risk and such can fiddle with the experience. But if you are nothing but a gunslinger who blows himself up on a bad roll that is more than a little underwhelming to me. Also, can we have a mind duel between bodyless psykers as a high end option? Always wanted this assuming its dynamic and not just a simple roll off...
  3. I wholeheartedly agree. I have enjoyed my current campaign with the DH2 skill and characteristic mix-and-match and the reduction in spreading xp across so many skills. I do feel like there is a lot of tech use and intelligence based rolls so far after 20,000 xp into this system, but that could be me as GM and also our having a tech-priest playing a central role in the party. if anything the one characteristic that gets left out the most is strength, but if we had more sword junkies they would be all about it, so whatever. In general though, I am pleased. The Specialty feat being necessary for forbidden lore is better than it was before, but I am not 100% happy with that solution and I am not sure what the best fix is. None of the suggestions made on this forum have grabbed me yet.
  4. People keep repeating that about 40k xenos. The fact of the matter, though, is that all xeno races were invented by humans, and all info we have on them was written by humans. And that makes them inherently understandable, because the human mind is incapable of imagining something it cannot comprehend. Frankly, I actually find the idea of 40k xenos being hard to play particularly preposterous, because what passes for human in 40k already operates on a pretty alien mindset from our contemporary perspective. If you can get into the mind of a superstitious bigot who accepts every command from his superiors as literal word of god enough to play him, you'll be fine playing a stuck up, pointy-eared guy who believes in destiny and is willing to commit any atrocity for the survival of his race. Yeah... 40k is already a setting of caricature and larger-than-life or out-of-this-world figures in some respects. I am not certain that there is much difference, and certainly if people want to play xenos they should. The reality is the concept of xenos in 40k is not particularly more complex than how any given group of roleplayers might manage anyhow. Eldar pretty much are a narrowly exaggerated band of human traits. As are orks, etc. Yes, a convincingly alien portrayal might be a challenge, but that is not a good reason to deny people the opportunity. That said, I don't have much interest in doing so myself. I feel like the Imperium is far more developed and that playing as a xenos would stretch my interpretation of the setting rather a lot. It would have to be well-packaged and supported for me to consider. The exception would be BC I suppose, playing a xenos Chaos adherent in a Chaos warband seems way more plausible than most other shoehorned explanations for it, and also easier to support without having an entire convincing infrastructure for the xenos.
  5. If memory serves there are over 60 worlds liberated by the initial push of the Orpheus salient alone before hive fleet Dagon arrived to mess things up. That should suggest a fair number of world even not counting the fortress worlds, war worlds, etc. Seems to me there would be plenty of room for wandering off of the beaten path and finding what you want. Even so... The Tau and Tyranids got there somehow. presumably the big bad warpstorms that conveniently cut off the sector for over 5000 years are dissipated in places. That is a large part of the strategic value of the place, after all. it is not far from the Realm of Ultramar and the trade routes through it to the Realm are valuable etc. blah blah blah. So you could very comfortably wander outside the Reach when you wanted something a little less crusade oriented.
  6. I also totally disagree. The wound system is slow to use, and perhaps too complex (honestly, my PCs fight a lot of novices and elites, which cuts down on the bookkeeping considerably) but the old HP based system was far worse and I had already discarded before the beta emerged. Describing damage on most unconventional foes merely requires a little creativity or you can simply not bother. Perhaps one of the benefits of being a metal-rock creature is that you ignore some critical effects, much like daemons. Alternatively, perhaps it oozes molten metal, maybe the spectre drops ectoplasm from its ghostly wounds, perhaps it fades partially out of existence, less real after being wounded, and thus weakened in some palpable way. Much as the book suggests that critical effects to bionics still totally happen, merely the description changes, so too, you can do the same thing with almost any other circumstance. Also, as already noted, the critical effects of DH1 have the same trouble, so if this is really a problem, it is not avoided by remaining stuck with the clunky system FFG inherited along with DH1.
  7. Also, consider setting your DH campaign in the Jericho Reach. It doesn't feature Orks or Dark Eldar extensively (for that, go to the OW setting) but it does have pretty much everything else and there is no reason why all of the resources designed around your PC space marines interacting with inquisitors and such can't be turned into your PC inquisitors interacting with space marines and such. I have already made plans to do something like this at some point in one of my DH campaigns. Newly conquered or reconquered planets are no doubt rife with heresy and recidivist and resurgent cults and the constant threat of them being followed by invasion, whether those groups operate at the behest of genestealer, Tau, or other masters. Honestly, even many of the adventures can be adapted. You cannot tell me that the more investigation oriented DW adventures make more sense for a team of space marines than they do for throne agents. Edit or don't the combat sections depending upon the rank of your warband and move on. The reality is that most DW adventures seem to be infatuated with ranks 1-3 anyway so a higher rank group of acolytes might even be able to just take them on largely unaltered.
  8. I wonder if given the current costs the xp totals per level aren't a big part of the problem. If you were to say, double the amount of xp necessary to advance to each rank and then double xp rewards (or just use 500 as in the update because that is a lot for a session unless your sessions reach 4+ hours) the end result would be that characters would be able to diversify themselves more and be less intent upon spending all their xp on their schtick. It would also mean that you could double starting xp pretty comfortably, allowing for more variety at rank one. In any case, I think a motivations step would be a great addition, although i would be happy for it to be pretty open-ended, not unlike the role system. I agree that backgrounds are a bit too conforming, I think some choices offered for starting skills/talents/gear coming out of those background might help a bit. One could even just list "one weapon of X rarity and its associated proficiency" in some cases. I definitely had fun with the roles mechanic and the openness it offered. I created a unique "breaker" out of the hierophant role with the psyker elite advance and described them as a sanctioned interrogation specialist who took advantage of psychic techniques and the usual fear of psykers to scare/beat information out of high value subjects on this particular plaent. I then gave this character the Arbites background to represent the law enforcement origin of the character. This sort of thing would not have been possible under DH1 and I am very tickled it was here. As a power gaming option it was not particularly awesome I suppose, but it is different from the shoehorned role even mystic offers in the current system let alone the sickly scholar trope of the previous edition. This character is primarily a biomancer, telekine, and pyromancer. he inflicts pain and cajoles victims into confession through fear and intimidation, and he views this as his sacred duty to use his curse/gift in the Emperor's service in this way. He is dogmatic about the Imperial Creed and the Lex Imperialis. He is physically imposing and frightening. His intelligence and knowledge of lore are not his greatest assets, but rather his ability to get information out of people. Perhaps that exact example doesn't float your boat or match your vision of 40k, fine, but I am pleased that this flexibility is there and if anything I want more.
  9. I like the scaling but I also think cps has a point, getting away from having to do as much math for each step of what you do is generally wise. On the other hand, unlike attacks with the primitive quality the armor agility calculation does not usually need to happen every time there is combat, the calculation is made and noted when you put the armor on and then remains constant.
  10. As I make my own edited rulebook for my current campaign I have changed all RoF listings to have the following notation standard: RoF 1+ is RAW RoF 1/3 and 1/4 become RoF 1[1] RoF 1/2 becomes RoF 1[2] The number in the bracket indicates the maximum number of AP you can spend firing the weapon per turn. This is reasonably easy to convert, easy to notate, flexible, since you could even have a three shot burst or some such, and actually saves space since it gets rid of special qualities like single shot while maintaining the functionality.
  11. This looks really awesome. I like it. Totally what would make divination fun. I can imagine a player saying "and that is why I insisted upon going down here this morning and unlocking this door..." (door is now unlocked, PCs escape raging inferno in the nick of time).
  12. Agreed, hence this thought. I am currently editing a copy of my pdf to make House-ruled version that incorporates all of the changes I like and all of Update 3 because I am totally OCD I guess. As I do so I am adding/inventing push effects. I can perhaps list some here later if I get around to it.
  13. Which is too bad really, it's actually really helpful as signal in writing structure, but alas, no.
  14. So as my player group comprehensively edits the beta rules pdf so we can keep running our campaign for now, we came up with a way to make pushing tempting to psykers. Give every power a push feature. Something special and unique and "overcharged" about every one that makes that choice of whether or not to risk the near-certain chance of phenomena in the hopes of getting a spectacular result. This would of course replace the bonus PL mechanic, a mechanic I have always thought was rather tame feeling for channeling too much of the warp out of desperation. Examples might include an increased rate of fire, adding a blast value, adding a special quality to an attack, making dominate apply to more than one person, allowing endurance to cure crits, allow assail to throw the person it inflicts damage to, change the fear on terrify to flee, make warp speed also give you an extra AP, etc. Pushing can make a concrete difference in what you do as a psyker, but is it worth the phenomena you almost certainly inflict on yourself and those around you?
  • Create New...