Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Erborn

  1. Don't know, it is pretty much clear cut and in line with other 40k roleplay games. Less detailed than Corruption (on the subject of Disorders), but then madness defies description by its nature
  2. Well, if only to play a devil's advocate, I think Balenorn may have a point. Consider the following: 1. A vindicare assassin (BS score 55+, aiming bonus 60+, etc) is making a called head shot. There are two ways he can do it - properly and "from the hip". 1.1A. If he is doing it right, then he is concealed half a mile away from his target, his rifle is silenced, the target is rigged with a homing beacon and is asleep. Under these circumstances, the target has no chance to dodge because it is unaware of the attack to begin with. So it gets no save and - unless the assassin botches the roll - is pretty much doomed. 1.1B. The same coniditions, but the target is awake. Just the same - the bullet comes from very far away and with a nearly supersonic speed. No knowledge of the shot, no dodge attempt. 1.1C. And then, the same assassin is firing straight in the face of the target that is aware of the fact. That's a whole different story, because, no matter how cunning his aim is, he is still making just a single shot. The bullet is away and now it comes down purely to the reflexes of its intended target - it's not like the sniper can mentally alter the bullet trajectory, after all. DoS have no business here - they were used to determine the lethality of the shot if it hits, but they rightly have no bearing on the hit chances. 2. A master swordsman, inquisitor Conan of Ordo Pathos, is attacking someone with his Sword of Auto-Hit +60. 2.1. Now, he IS a master swordsman and as such he knows a lot of cool and lethal moves, with which to throw his target off balance. That's what Killing Strike, Feint and all other things are for - to ensure your target gets no chance to dodge / parry in the first place. 2.2. But if this great warrior only makes simplistic moves, bellowing "Hasan chops!"... well, he can be sure the target will try to evade. And then it's only just a single basic attack, driven by muscles and subject to laws of physics - it is no easier nor harder to evade due to renown of the swordsman To sum up, think about this in this way: if the character is a great warrior, he should know his moves, And if he does, his target WILL die with no chance to evade, but If he plays it stupid, well... to be blunt, it's his own problems. And also consider the opposite situation: 3. An amateur shoota-boy-wannabe with his BS 24 is making a shot at PC character (a high-level assassin). Ork scores 3 out of 24 and gets 2 full DoS. Assassin scores 84 out of 91... a basic success. Under current rules assassin gets to live as he easily dodged the clumsy ork shot, under DoS-based version he... well, maybe not dies, but is obviously not well. A rather grotesque situation, IMHO.
  3. Ehm... that's what I said, no?
  4. Yup. If a player can't come up with a good story how he acquired daemonic lore (and got away with it), he can't have it. On the other hand, if you're playing a Malleus and combat-oriented campaign, you wouldn't want your players to spend half their EXP on a collection of obscure skills, for it's quite possible they end up knowing all about daemons but unable to actually harm one The Specialist talent is actually a very good idea, IMHO. It takes a single skill for remembering things and then expands upon it by setting many areas of expertise. In essence, it's not so different from the old Knowledge skills, but it avoids overcrowding of a skill tree, which is great. By the way, the easiest way for a DM to make daemonic / xenos / other forbidden lore feel 'more special' is to split up the respective talent into more numerous groups. For example, in addition to 'Daemons' you can have 'Khorne', 'Nurgle', 'Malal', 'Angron'... and any other number of daemonic-related groups of knowledge. They should probably cost less than the general talent (but have it as a prerequisite, as they essentially expand upon it), but could provide access to detailed areas of expertise otherwise unavailable to a player.
  5. Probably that's the case But wouldn't it be more logical to give chain weapons a set Pen value (say, 4 to represent their adamantium 'motorized cutting edge') and allow Str bonus to influence Damage (to represent messy & grisly wounds resulting from application of higher physical pressure)?
  6. The idea as such is cool, true, but what strikes me as odd is that the chain weapons get a Str bonus to Pen instead of Damage. Think about it - you're getting hit by a - simply put - giant chainsaw. First its motorized blades have to cut through armour and at this point Pen value applies. Now, I guess those of us who tried to cut a tree or a metal bar with the instrument can confirm one simple truth - if your chainsaw blade is inferior compared to what you're trying to cut, you won't exactly cut through it. Of course, if you apply high enough pressure, you can still inflict some damage on the object - but it would not be a pretty cut line, but rather an aggravated wound and your chainsaw will lose more than a few teeth in the process. That is not 'penetration', that's just **** of a honest tool damage resulting from sheer physical might. After all, you can bend and ultimately break or tear a metal bar, if you're strong and stubborn enough, but you can't exactly cut it with a wood saw
  7. Erborn


    IMHO : 1. A Willpower test (-20) to actually do anything except trying to put out the fires sounds very nice. It worked great in the old rules anyway. 2. Mental Fortitude talents should allow to make the test easier: Nerves of Steel, Iron Discipline and Jaded each giving a +10 bonus for the test (up to +10 in total). Fearless / From Beyond perks should allow to pass the test automatically (as the (N)PC becomes either inspired or deranged enough to ignore demands of its flesh and instincts, if only for a time). 2. If (N)PC decides not to put out the flames, they continue to devour his flesh unopposed however, and so (N)PC adds +1 to his Burning condition per every Action point he used during that turn (on anything except putting out the flames, of course). 3. Also, every DoS on Agility test done to combat the flames should remove 1 level of Burning and each DoF - increase the level of Burning on +1.
  8. Personally, I would like to see the Wound system as follows: 1. Location-based Wounds. Wounds are applied exactly to the location upon which they are inflicted, with no shared bonuses. We played like that in our small community and trust me, it doesn't increase the time nor difficulty of combat encounters. A simple damage chart per player (one small page / scrap of paper) is sufficient to keep track on incoming Wounds for each character. 2. Damage-tied Wound modifiers. Each Wound (inflicted upon a location) gives a bonus to the following one equal to it's unmodiifed Damage value minus target's Toughness value. For example, an acolyte with TB3 is hit three times in his Body by a lasgun volley. After deducing his Armour and TB (for calculating the Damage values), we get 3, 6 and 1. Then we resolve the Wounds - result of 3 gives us something insignificant on the table and NO BONUS to subsequent Wounds (Damage 3 minus TB3 = 0). The result of 6 then gives us a relatively minor effect, providing a bonus of 3 (6 - 3 = 3) to subsequent Wound effects. Then the last result of 1 is increased up to 4 (1 + bonus of 3), but in itself will add nothing to the bonus pool as it's unmodified Damage value is 1 (and 1 minus TB3 = 0). The above-mentioned is my humble attempt to summarize the ideas of Lynata and Nimsim, described in this thread earlier. 3. Damage charts. IMHO, there should be 16 instead of just 9 charts: 3.1. By damage types - Energy, Impact, Rending, Explosive 3.2. By damage location - Head, Arm, Leg, Body Removal of Explosive damage type and unification of Arms and Legs into Limbs is probably a result of simplification effort, but honestly, guys, those of us unable to rummage through a few tables play in computer RPG's. It is called Pen & Paper for a reason Besides, critical damage to Arms and Legs will by definition lead to somewhat different results, and the Explosive damage actually combines the Energy, Impact and Rending in one package, which must sensibly be reflected by deadlier damage results. 4. Critical hits. Instead of giving a bonus / multiplier to Wound effects, Critical Hits should be additionally resolved vs. target's TB and be potentially fatal. I think you'll agree that (almost) every Head has a a Brain somewhere deep inside, and any Damage applied directly to it will be very unpleasant for the recipient to say the least. Similarly, every Body has Liver, Lungs, Heart, in some cases - Balls (perish the thought), etc. In Arms and Legs we get major arteries, which if severed almost invariably result in a very bloody and very swift demise. So, what I propose is for the Critical Hit to represent a (un)lucky hit to just such a location. To avoid tons of tables for each organ in question, the effects could be summarized in the following way: 1. Damage value (as per p.2) is less than target's TB = painful hit but no real damage; Toughness test (with a bonus = difference between TB and Damage multiplied by 10) to overcome the pain. Target Dazed if the test is failed. 2. Damage value is equal to target's TB = relatively minor damage. The same as above, but the target is Stunned if the test is failed. 3*. Damage value is greater than TB = Internal Bleeding (X). This is a Blood Loss condition, which can't be treated in the field and will require at least basic medical facilities. X = difference between Damage and TB. 4*. Damage value is twice (or more) greater than TB = target dies. For example, an Ogryn with TB 6 is hit in the head by a sniper rifle. Sniper, the devious little bastard that he is, scores a Critical Hit and also throws in an additional damage dice for shooting at an unaware target, giving him an impressive result of 23. After substracting Ogryn's TB (let's assume he has no armour on the head) the resulting Damage value is (23 minus 6) 17. Ogryn got quite a headache! In addition, as this is a Critical Hit, we look up the Ogryn TB (6) and compare it with the Damage value (17)... Hmm... Rest in peace, our muscular friend... * - as a side note, in this case Space Marine Implants and Strange Anatomy traits might come in handy, allowing for a Toughness test to avoid blood loss / death.
  9. That's too boring - to have no location ties for hits, I mean. Much funnier (and realistic) way is to use location-based critical damage and to differentiate wound pool between head and body. In this way a headshot actually matters and a critical damage to a knee does not influence a severity of a next crit you get in the arm. Not sure if it was in the official rules (have a nagging suspicion it IS there somewhere - could be wrong, of course), but that's the way our group played... well, since the start of v.1.0 actually The problem is, while in the old system such a conversion was possible (and easy to achieve), adjustments to a new system would require an overhaul of a table, which personally I very much prefer to avoid... The point stands however - a successful headshot used against an unprotected (and surprised!) creature is not something it should be able to walk away from unscathed. A space marine or a carnousaur - perhaps (but they have high TB value and good armour to represent their increased survival chances) - but in no way a puny ratling / gretchin / whatever
  10. The number of wounds in the head generally equals your TB - that was the whole point of shooting in the head in DH1. The one exception to this rule were creatures with Strange Anatomy trait, when indeed a total number of wounds was used no matter what location we hit. An extremely healthy (and overfed) ratling has TB4, so - 4 wounds in the head. Everything over that value goes to critical damage. 13 damage in the head thus means "4 to wounds, 9 to crit's".
  11. Erborn


    Personally, I very much like the idea of progressing Malignancies as they're included in the new rules. But yes, the Mutations should really be a "breed apart". Maybe it could be done in the following way? 1. A 20-line long table for Malignancies, which all include an option to "stack up", 2. Every 10 CP character makes a roll on this table, with every double rolled up increasing his signature malignancy, just like in the rules. 3. Once a character gets level 3 in any single malignancy, the corruption takes hold and he is then entitled to make a roll on one of two Mutation tables. 4. If character successfully makes a saving throw (which I think must include Toughness and WP tests), he gets to roll on Minor Mutations. If he fails the test, a Major Mutation roll it is. With only 10 rolls on Malignancy table till the end, PC will have few opportunities to actually Mutate, but on the other hand, a risk will always be there starting with 30 CP (which is roughly an equivalent of what we had in DH1).
  12. We've had a short game session using new wounding rules today. In general, the idea worked for us, but we've had a... strange... occurence That Unbreakable Ratling Skull Tech-priest silently drew his trusty Hand Cannon and aimed it slowly at the back of an unsuspecting ratling's head. Took a deep breath to calm his nerves, then gently pulled the trigger - bullet hit the target squarely in the head... ...taking into account how the ratling was Unaware and all that, we threw in an additional D10 dice for damage roll, and in the end came up with a result of 13 (defence value already substracted). Ratling's TB in the head was 2 and, being one of the mission targets, he was a "Master" class NPC. Old rules: Ratling has 4 wounds in the head (his unmodified TB), so the result of 13 would mean a Crit 9, which is a gory and lethal outcome. Farewell, little fella, good knowing ya... New rules: ... The ratling staggered and fought for concentration as the attack smashed into the bridge of his nose (!), shattering the cartilage and shaking his skull. In the end, the guy ended up with 2 levels of Fatigue and became Dazed for a single round. ... The tech-priest, staring at the surviving little pest somewhat increduously, pulled the trigger again... This time he came up (second damage dice aside, as the ratling was no longer surprised) with a damage result of 6, then added +5 for a previous wound... Whoa, a whole Wound effect 11! ...The strike clanged off ratling's skull, rattling his brain and leaving his ears ringing... He became Deafened for three rounds. ...Tech-priest, spewing obscenities, discarded his apparently useless, Omnissiah-cursed gun and went for the knife... Here we just ruled out that Ratling WAS killed by a next attack, as the whole thing was getting on the wrong side of hilarious
  13. That actually solves it I guess
  14. Parrying and Dodging use the same move algorithms at least. The core difference between them is what appendages you use - arms for parrying, legs for dodging (usually) - but the basic moves are the same, or at least have the same roots. Denying is something else entirely, IMHO. I agree, for monk-like characters it is, maybe, possible to use evade in this case... but for an Underhive gung-ho? C'mon, really? As for the balancing issue, think on it from this perspective: you play as a psyker and so invested a lot of XP in psychic techniques and spent no small roleplaying efforts to justify how you learned them. All other player types just bought good guns (availability of Good Guns in the present Armoury aside ) without any great difficulties and spent their XP on advances in characteristics and skills. Then it comes to a shootout - that they can dodge your Witchfire powers and parry your Flaming Whatevers, that's all explainable and expected. But then they use the very same Evade +30 to deny your hard-won mind control powers... That sounds unreasonable and unfair actually. Some saving throw from psychic powers MUST exist, I fully agree with this, but shouldn't it be... I don't know... more WP-oriented?
  15. That is true, of course. But my point is, the training required for Dodging / Parrying and Denying is by its nature very different, and progress in one does not guarantees progress in the other.
  16. Honestly? IMHO. what stands out as really strange is the fact that when you learn to jump and wheel out of the harm's way you somehow improve your ability to deflect psychic powers at the same time. In case of psyniscience-tied technique it is explainable - you learn to better assess the flow and ebb of the Warp and therefore can better anticipate and counter the enemy psyker's antics. And please kindly notice even non-psykers have access to Psyniscience on -10 level, so technically they can still Deny - just in a limited capacity, which is right. After all, an average Mic or Joe can't become great at denying anything; not because they're slow-witted or weak-willed, but because they have no idea what are the signs to look for in the first place.
  17. Wouldn't it be better to move Deny the Witch ability to Psyniscience skill instead of Evade? Imagine an acrobat. He would be invariably good at Evading, as it is one of its two signature skills (the other one being - unsurprisingly - Acrobatics). But does it makes him good at resisting Psychic powers? Yes, his WP-based Evade would be lower than AG-based one, but still... is it actually right (logic-wise) to assume that one can learn how to evade physical and mental blows at the same time?
  18. Technically, meltagun CAN be described as they did in v. 2.0. In essence, it is a gun that fires a burst of highly concentrated and super-heated plasma, which at close range has so high armour penetration rate that it effectively ignores armour completely, but at mid and long range dissipates to just a cloud of your regular plasma. Highly arguable point of view (and personally I prefer the old outlook on meltaguns), but it could be done in this way as well. The same goes for sniper rifle - yes, it looks (in my opinion as well) silly that a sniper has to spend two rounds to actually make a called shot... but then again, consider how a sniper operates. The sniper rifle is a weapon of precision, but it is a nightmare to aim through a sniper scope at speed (especially if it has a view magnifier). A master sniper might pull that trick perhaps, but your average Man-With-The-Gun will have to take his time to land a shot. The main problem with the new weapon / armour stats, IMHO, is not that they're broken or unbalanced - they just don't conform the established / historic / fluff / whatever view of how they are expected to work AND they contradict the previous stats we're all used to. Simply put, they feel wrong compared to previous material, tabletop or roleplay. One (not ideal) solution I see here is for us to stick to old equipment stats as they're shown in OW and BC. Granted, we'll have to attach action points to old weapon profiles, but that's no great challenge I guess
  19. That is not entirely correct I believe. The rules are as follows: [page 207] To determine the wound effect, the character takes the total damage dealt by the hit (damage value minus defence value) and adds modifiers for each wounds he was suffering from prior to the attack: Wound +5 Critical wound +10 So, if we ignore the errant "S" at the end of "Wounds" word (highlighted) and read the rule as it was probably intended, we get +10 to wound effects from EACH critical wound and +5 - from each regular wound. Which in turn means that two critical wounds to any given location practically guarantee character's death after a third wound, as the wound effect score of 29+ invariably kills. The wounds overhaul idea as such, IMHO, is therefore good and sound. What is arguable is the level of 29+ for wound effects to become lethal - in my opinion, it should be cut on 10 points (with score of 19+ killing outright), but I guess that's down to personal preferences for combat lethality. Weapon and armour stats ARE weird however Not unbalanced between themselves, mind you, but weird. As a side note - consider the tabletop: we have armour save 6+ for cloth armour and armour save 3+ for power armour. Which means power armour is (mathematically) only twice better than simple cloth. Now look for their respective stats in DH2.0 - 3 for cloth, 6 for power... hmm...
  20. Yup. I guess they tried to introduce a notion of certain flexible weapons being more about finesse than brute strength... but in all honesty, damage from being cracked by a whip differs in magnitude depending on just who is holding that whip. And by the Dark Gods, why the Great Weapon is invariably Impact (especially if we consider that the Warhammer is a separate entry)? No Great Swords / Axes in the far future anymore?
  21. I sincerely hope I misread something, but Armoury section just doesn't look right 1. We have a bolt pistol being less deadly than a needler. C'mon, penetration of 2 for bolt weapons? No, really? 2. Robes (you know, this fabric-like thing your average spellcaster wears) has armour of 3 while a light power armour has armour 6? Nevermind the fact that the bolt pistol can't now penetrate a robe... 3. We also have only three damage types now - Energy, Impact and Rending. Personally I was hoping to get Flame as a separate entry, because you know, there IS a difference in how your body reacts to a lightburn and being boiled in flames... What is really disappointing however is the removal of Explosive damage type. Yes, formally an explosion can still be categorized as one of the (damage types) listed above - but again, the enveloping effects of a blast usually combine the damage types. Take even the *basic* shrapnel blast for example - first you get the blast impact (I), then the heat wave (E), then you're being shredded by metal shards ( R ). The old Explosive damage type neatly reflected the lethality of just such a damage.
  22. Quite the opposite, actually. They just combined the Malignancies and Mutations separate tables into a single one. Only took a quick look at this section, but it seems you still have the option of rolling up a multi-armed burrowing acid-blooded warp-spawn
  23. Took a quick look at the book btw - the rules are really fun, but a bit of a "thing in itself" (IMHO, of course). That's not a bad thing, mind you, but to actually combine the rules with original DH or even OW... another painful experience indeed Skill system overhaul isn't the problem actually - they are close to what we could find in BC / OW... even more generalized, but it's not a bad thing. Ability to use different characteristics for each skill fully makes up for a relatively small number of skills themselves. Characteristic advances seem to be a bit overpowered at first glance: "the lifetime total number of advances purchased in each individual characteristic cannot exceed the character's rank". Logically it means a character can buy up to 10 advances per characterstic (since level 10 seem to be a max one). However if we consider the "25+ best 2 ouf of 3d10" rule, the max characteristic value we're potentially looking at here would be 95 (25+20+5*10), which is actually more or less in line with what we can squeeze out of DH1 with a bit of luck. And the EXP cost of such a boost would be tremendous, so I guess it's OK. The Talent tree... it's really different from what we can find in other WH40k games. Some talents share common names and / or effects, but there are a lot of differences too. The most notable one (again IMHO) is that the former Lore skills are now Talents tied to Remembrance skill. Makes more sense actually, as it allows to avoid overcrowding of the skill tree, which was often the case in DH1, especially in investigation-oriented parties. And just as you said, the combat system is reworked... can't comment on what I see now though; it's late into the night and the brain's not working properly
  24. I just hope there shall remain an easy-to-use way to combine DH with other products of the line Ran a few dozen WH40k sessions by now, and more than once we intergated both RT and DW features into the game (not to mention few cases of BC, when certain inquisitorial acolytes went rogue). When White Wolf remade World of Darkness all those years ago, it was one hell of an exercise to put two editions together
  • Create New...