Jump to content

Fresnel2

Members
  • Content Count

    539
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fresnel2

  1. "Was that an argument that needed to be made?" Clearly it was, as Max's answer demonstrates - this was the critical part of his answer (which he highlights in CAPS). What proceeded was just a recap of undisputed canon. He understood the my question, which you still appear not to... Before Max said that, there was no authoritative reason to assume the Good Craftsmanship rule didn't apply situationally, post acquisition. Many rules in roleplaying games only apply situationally - it's hardly an unusual concept.
  2. No you didn't. Neither you or TormDK made the argument that the Good craftsmanship rule should only be applied at acquisition. At the time that would have been an unsupported position, but it would have been reasonable. It would have actually addressed the case I presented, which would have been nice...
  3. Message from Max Brooke (FFG): Let me clarify by going through a few points: -In the general case, if a ranged weapon gains the Unreliable Quality, it loses Reliable Quality (and vice-versa) as described before. -In the specific case of the Lasgun Variable Setting rule, firing in overcharge mode means that the weapon "loses Reliable, and gains Unreliable." This supersedes the usual way that Reliable and Unreliable interact, and means that the weapon ends up with Unreliable (because Reliable is explicitly removed first by the Lasgun Variable Setting rule, and thus isn't there to cancel Unreliable). -Good Craftsmanship says that the weapon "loses the Unreliable Quality. If it does not have the Unreliable Quality, it gains the Reliable Quality. If it already has this Quality, there is no further effect…" This effect that removes the Unreliable Quality applies ONLY upon the "creation" (usually, for all intents and purposes, the acquisition by the Player Characters) of the weapon. In the case of the Good Craftsmanship M36 Lasgun, the Good Craftsmanship checks if the weapon is Unreliable (it is not), then checks if it is Reliable (it is), and so it has no additional effect. Therefore, if a Good Craftsmanship weapon gains the Unreliable Quality later (temporarily or permanently), it does not cancel due to the Good Craftsmanship. *************************** So there we have it. The Good craftsmanship effect is only applied once, at acquisition. Issue clarified. Thanks Max!
  4. As I have said many times, the weapon being Reliable as default (or Overcharge) is irrelevant. Since you like maths, I will phrase it in mathematical terms. WQ = Weapon Qualities (n,r,u) n = No Quality r = Reliable Quality u = Unreliable Quality V = variable setting (d,oc,ol) d = default mode oc = overcharge mode ol = overload mode WQ = f1(V) = Variable setting rule. Qualities vary as a function of variable setting mode. f1(ol) = u WQ = f2(WQ) = good craftsmanship rule. Quality varies as a function current Quality f2(u) = n Therefore: WQ = f2(f1(ol)) = n
  5. "Everyone understands your question/argument fine, so please lose the attitude. " I don't believe you do. "Per RAW (Including erretta) this is not possible because the reliable quality does not get reapplied due to craftmanship when firing on overload as the quality does not stack with itself. (In effect not doing the ((1-1)+1) math I did)." There is no maths involved in this, just logic. Q&A3 has no bearing on 4 and 5. The RAW sets out rules and we should follow them. The Good craftsmanship rule does not ask us to consider what qualities a weapon *had*. The Good craftsmanship rule doesn't say that it only modifies the weapon in its default state - although that may be the intent. Barring clarification, the rule should be applied instance by instance. So every time you fire the gun, you check if it has the Unreliable quality. If it does the Good craftsmanship rule should be applied, removing this quality. This is RAW. You can house rule it if you wish...
  6. Let me try one last time... Q1: What quality does a M36 fired on normal or overcharge setting possess? A1: The Reliable quality Q2: What quality does a Good Craftsmanship M36 fired on normal or overcharge setting possess? A2: The Reliable quality Q3: Does a Good Craftsmanship M36 fired on normal or overcharge setting possess a better version of Reliable or a 'stacked' or redundant Reliable quality? A3: No, no such thing exists in the game Q4: What quality does a M36 on Overload setting possess? A4: The Unreliable quality (see p175) Q5: What effect does good craftsmanship have on a weapon with the Unreliable quality? A5: A weapon of good craftsmanship loses the Unreliable quality. Please identify which of the above Q&A you dispute.
  7. Well, the OW errata you point only says you cannot have double Reliable - which is irrelevant. You can tomato, but I say it's comprehension of written English... As for this Overheat nonsense: p167 Poor: Shoddy and dangerous to use, this weapon has the Unreliable Quality. If the weapon already has this Quality, then it jams on any failed hit roll. See Plasma weapons (in the main rules) p174; none has the Unreliable Quality, therefore the second sentence doesn't apply to poor craftsmanship plasma weapons... Unreliable is a Jam on a 91-00. Overheat is on a 91-00 and any Jam result is an overheat, so Unreliable is a redundant quality. Back to the Topic: Good craftsmanship guns lose their Unreliable Quality - where does the canon qualify this? I far as I can see, nowhere. It may well be that the official answer is that the Unreliable from Overload trumps Good craftsmanship. However, I await word on this.
  8. The BC FAQ entry does suggest the that the Unreliable from Overload isn't effected by Good craftsmanship - but the question is poorly formed and poorly answered. Also, there is no strict consistency between the lines. I am mystified as how anyone might read the Overheat Quality and Poor craftsmanship rule, then conclude you overheat on any miss. So I have no idea how you think this relates to this issue. Can you elaborate?
  9. Again, close but a miss. I don't have BC, but the OW rules on Good Craftsmanship must differ from BC - the questioner thinks he has redundant Reliable Qualities - which anyone reading the OW version would not. Even the answer does not address my issue, as the question is malformed (from my perspective). The answer is trivially true - of course the Reliable Quality doesn't stack. Strictly speaking the 'answer' is unclear. The questioner poses two options. The answer is a blanket 'NO'. So you might read the answer as saying both options presented are wrong. Option 1: Does it now count as Unreliable: NO Option 2: Does the second Reliable Trait cancel this out: NO Common use suggests that a "Yes" was meant for the first option, but... The question should be: Question: If the Good Craftsmanship laspistol is fired on Overload mode (see page 153), does the Good Craftsmanship (see page 147) rule remove the Unreliable Quality temporarily gained? Answer: TBD From a game point of view, allowing this advantage, gives a combat advantage to Good Craftsmanship lasguns. Currently there is none. Neither is the effect of reducing the probability of a jam by 5% (sometimes), so outside a typical advantage conferred by good craftsmanship. In fact it is completely in-line with the advantage we might expect. I suspect that if asked this question the official FFG answer might be "no". However, it doesn't appear obvious why.
  10. That is close to addressing this issue, but misses the mark. Good Craftsmanship does not give a 2nd Reliable quality to a Reliable weapon - that was never suggested. In fact the RAW states it has no effect on a Reliable weapon - but a M36 on Overload is not a Reliable weapon, it is an Unreliable weapon. This is about removing a temporary Unreliable Quality, not retaining the lost Reliable Quality. Premise 1: A lasgun on Overload setting loses Reliable and gains the Unreliable Quality Premise 2: If a Good Craftsmanship ranged weapon has the Unreliable Quality, the Good Craftsmanship rule removes it Conclusion: A Good Craftsmanship lasgun on Overload, has neither the Reliable or Unreliable Qualities The uncertainty lies in the fact that the Unreliable Quality here is situational. The rules on Craftsmanship do not address. The Unreliable Quality can be applied situationally is a number of ways. A weapon exposed to a dust storm might gain Unreliable until cleaned for instance. Does Good/Best Craftsmanship protect a weapon from this and similar situational effects? To me it doesn't seem crazy to assume it does. Any FAQ entry on this would need to be: Q: Does the Good Craftsmanship rule remove an Unreliable Quality that is temporarily applied to a weapon (for example, using the Overload setting on a M36)? A: TBD
  11. A good craftsmanship ranged weapon with the Unreliable Quality, loses it (if it has it, see p167). A good-craftsmanship M36 Lasgun normally applies no benefit - since it is already Reliable (p167). However, in the Overload setting the M36 Lasgun gains the Unreliable Quality (p175). Therefore, in Overload mode, a good craftsmanship M36 loses the Reliable Quality - but does not gain the Unreliable Quality. Jams on a 96-00. A best quality M36 on Overload would never Jam - a jam counts as a miss. However, technically the gun has the Unreliable Quality and so misses on a 91-00. Imo this is a little odd... Common Sense would suggest that Best Craftsman should apply the same benefit as Good with respect to losing Unreliable and gaining Reliable (as applicable) - in addition to Jams counting as a miss. Anyone disagree?
  12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem I suggest you read it. If two animals cannot be hybridized they are separate species - by every modern zoological definition. The controversy lies in animals that can be hybridized - but such events are not observed in nature. i.e. Q: Are Lions and Elephants separate species? A: Yes Q: Are Lions and Tigers separate species? A: Depends which definition you use. Robomummy: Thanks for pointing this out. I am surprised GW ever flirted with half-elves - but apparently they did... However, can we agree it's not modern canon? The products of mad science from Commorragh is not really evidence of common species. Those guys could make a half-man-half-chicken if they wished... Personally, I think Ratlings and Ogryns should be able to interbreed with humans. In fact I would imagine humanity as a very genetically diverse group. I imagine a lot of genetic engineering happening on populations during the Dark Age of Technology. However, GW have not explored this greatly - and I doubt they will. I doubt we should see anything like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gethen appearing is the WH40k verse.
  13. If you cannot interbreed them - then they are different species. It's a definitive positive test for separateness. There is no question of this. There are no hybrids in the fluff and I don't believe there ever will be. No hybrids after 10k years of contact is strong evidence that abhumans cannot interbreed with humans. Therefore they are separate species
  14. The definition of a species is not very precise in practice. However, if interbreeding (with fertile issue) is impossible (in nature) then you have separate species. Now a Ratling female might not be able to deliver (vaginally) a Ratling/Human child at full term, but that's not a problem on any world with fair medical skills. A human female should have no problem at all. If the resulting hybrid is fertile and is healthy enough to reach maturity, then you can argue that Ratlings and Humans belong to the same species. As long as a viable fertile hybrid is possible the same applies to Ogryns. However, the fluff never mentions hybrids... In 10k years you would think it should have happened. In fact, some populations may well be all hybrids - if human colonists came to the planet post-compliance. GW never explores this, and I don't think they will. There are no hybrids in the Fantasy Battle games and I don't believe there will be. Imo the same must apply to WH40K - no hybrids. This implies that Ratlings and Ogryns are not within the human species. GWs business is selling miniatures. They are not going to develop Ratlings or Ogryns in any significant way, unless they decide there is a market for selling more Ratling and Ogryn miniatures - i.e. like they did with Ogre Kingdoms. Perhaps we might see some development like this with the new IG codex - but I am not hopeful. Personally, I don't care to stick rigidly to established GW 'canon' (such as it is). Imo there should be dozens of Ratling and Ogryn homeworlds and the sons and daughters of each homeworld should have unique traits and cultures. To be good PCs, they need the breath of life out of the comic-relief mould they currently occupy.
  15. A sanctioned psyker represents a huge investment in resources for the imperium. I am sure the adminstratum (sp?) has a figure on it, but I would guess about the same as a Leman Russ. I don't buy your line of reasoning. Even if wearing carapace (the pysker) the commissar minder can do his duty. Tech-priests should get their dragon armour at the appropriate rank - they certainty have Power Armour on the TT. Imo some forge-world somewhere will be able to make Ogryn and Ratling carapace - even if in small runs. But all this is a ymmv issue. However, officially they get the same gear.
  16. I don't have HotE yet, but unless this book gives an exception, officially they get the same gear. You might rule that abhumans cannot get carapace in their size as standard gear, but that would be a house rule. As for human specialists - why wouldn't they get fitted for carapace? Whether a custom regiment simply don't have certain specialists is up to the players and GM. I could imagine such a restriction giving points in the creation process, but afaik OW haven't done this.
  17. One of the mismatches between the fluff and OW rules is that Illustrations of the Longlas point to the 'flash suppressor' and say it is quieter than normal las weapons.
  18. Apologises if this has been mentioned before, but aiming a long-barrelled gun without resting the far end is far more difficult. A shooter free standing or croaching is at a severe handicap compared to a guy using a rest. Suspending that "moment" through your arms leads to instability. In order to hit a head (assume a 160mm diameter circle) at 500 meters requires an angular accuracy of 160 microradians. If we assume one end is fixed and the barrel is 1 meter long, that translates to motion of 160 microns at the muzzle. Motions dues to, muscle tremor, heartrate and breathing are ampified down an unrested barrel. From this you need to subtract the accuracy of the weapon/ammo itself and the enviromental uncertainties. This isn't modelled in the OW ruleset. But imo any proper sniper shot (400m+) should use a rest.
  19. Yet Tom Cruise is the 'biggest' action movie star in Hollywood. Crazy world…
  20. Perfectly reasonable. But can you give an example of the system generating something silly? I don't have the book yet.
  21. Fresnel2

    Titans?

    In the original Epic game a squad of Space Marines had a chance of causing hits to a Titan - climbing up legs and planting Meltabombs. Scout Sergeant Talion does this in 'Eye of Vengence'. Obviously a normal human will have very little chance in pulling off such shunts. However, theoretically, if they got under the void shield somehow and used grapnels and Meltabombs… A lascutter might be able to cut through into the interior… However, this is really Deathwatch style stuff (RT at a push) not OW.
  22. Just don't roll 00…
  23. Well, I think we can all agree that sterotypes and over-the-top characters have absolutely no place in the WH40k setting… We all play this setting for deep explorations of the human condition, our characters having complex inner worlds which we develop over the course of the campaign with complete psychological verisimilitude. Who here could have read any of Tolken's novels without throwing them away in disgust at the cardboard characters presented? No one of course. The inappropriateness of Ratlings within the setting is self-evident.
  24. Yes, that's possible. However, a moon is likely to be tidally locked to its planet, so even if it had a liquid iron core it's magnetic field might be relatively weak. My point was that a Gas Giant can have a huge magnetosphere (like Jupiter does). So a moon orbiting such a gas giant doesn't need one of its own. For instance a Mars type moon would be fine. So a system with a dozen habitable worlds isn't so silly. No need to arm wave about wizards Of course in WH40k many of these habitual moons might have nearly 24 hour days… Suggesting that in the Dark Age of Technology the ancient engineers set the moons spinning as they desired. This might have solved both the magnetosphere issue (if its natural one was too weak) and made the moon more terra-like for colonists.
  25. Remember, statements of obvious are rarely helpful… For those (like the OP) who wish to maintain the barest breath of 'realism' to celestial mechanics within their game - I will assist them with my meager understanding of the topic. Personally I don't mind when WH40K gets silly with physics, except when it is simply lazy and/or pointlessly ignorant. For instance, the importance of a magnetosphere can be a story seed. How does this planet without a liquid iron core maintain a magnetic field? Obviously there is some archotech or xenotech at work here. Perhaps it would be worth more to the RT to salvage it, leaving the planet to its doom. Perhaps a rival RT has stolen the device from one of the PCs colonies?
×
×
  • Create New...