Jump to content

Askil

Members
  • Content Count

    370
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Askil

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    West Sussex, United Kingdom
  1. 1. It's called firewalling. Your character isn't you, nor are you your character. You are separate people with different training, worldviews and knowledge. A player being an IT tech (most of my group) doesn't mean their characters won't wast hours trying to identify the cogitators "any" key. Likewise player needn't know about Gellar filed fluctuations/voidship navigation/deamonic possession/psychic manifestaiton/mutational physiology for their character (who has the relevant lore skills) to be able to drone on explaining it in excrutiaing detail at every possible oppurtunity. (Sound like any adepts you know?) 2. Punish players foolish assumptions. Either by ignoring them, making them horrifyingly true in unexpected ways, or so humiliatingly untrue that your players feel like idiots and their superiors start to doubt their ability. In a related point one of our group's GM has taken to giving small bumps of insanity points when players use knowledge their characters would have no reasonable explaination for having or mention game mechanics in-game.
  2. Aside from FoeHammer618's very well put point which in my opinion is the reason for WS and BS. The current system by not using derived characteristics frees the system from the often-lamented issues that arise from them. For example: not every chainsword weilding loony is an olympic gymnast, nor is every mortar operator an eagle eyed acrobat and they shouldn't have to be to be effective. While I agree that combat skills are not inherent attrbutes in the same manner as say toughness or intelligence but by treating them as such one can allow these "skill attrbutes" to exist independently of the exploitable relationships with other stats that exist in many other games.
  3. I like the sound of this idea, how does it work? do the Acolytes all start with 100 Sanity and 100 Morality, and lose points as the go ? Could you explain it to me? I'd like to give it a try. Eaxctly that, rather than "gaining" a poorly defined amount of insanity or corruption as a negative stat take it as damage to a positive stat. I admit it kind of pierces the grimdark a bit but it works better in my mind and I'd like to imagine most gamers would feel similarly. For the actually ruling of it I'm taking a leaf out of the WW publishing's WoD system (just the concept of thesholds not the examples or sytemic implementation.) Assign thesholds with d5 and d10 damage values to certain acts/sights/crimes and allow PCs to take WP tests to apply their WPB+ each 2DoS to resist it. (Maybe allow a sanity or purity "bonus" of 0-10 on these rolls?) Quick theshold examples. Sanity d5: witnessed the murder of innocent/s d5: failed a fear test by a small degree d5: rendered helpless by the enemy d10: Failed a fear test by a great degree d10: Failed a critical mission d10: watched a friend/ally die Purity d5: Knowingly broke the law for own gain. d5: Keeping a heretical/xenos artifact when ordered to destroy it. d5: Witnessed a sinful act and did nothing d10: Witnessed a Choas ritual. d10: Saw an undisguised deamon/deamonhost d10: Knowingly aided the enemies of mankind. Eg. Bob bursts into the Sanguine Cabal's sanctum his bolt pistol smoking and chainblade dripping from his heroic last push through the last few cultists guarding the doors. But it's too late. He arrives just in time to witness his master Inquisitor Frank dying under a bone knife upon an altar of bronze, sacrificed to the dark gods by the radical horusian inquisitor Harry Bigbad. Two mutated cultists seize him and he is forced to watch as Bigbad binds a deamon into the flesh of his master. After the act is done they beath him unconscious and throw him into a sump pit. Bob suffers 2D10+D5 Sanity Damage from the ordeal (failed a mission, watched an ally die, rendered helpless), and 2D10+d5 Purity damage from witnessing the ritual (Witnessed a chos ritual, saw a deamonhost, witnessed sinful act and did nothing.) Bob (WP 25, Sanity 94, Purity 100) requires a 34 on his Sanity test (WP+Sanity Bonus of 9)rolls a 40, failing his WP test against the sanity damage and loses 16 (2d10+d5) sanity points, He requires a 35 for his Purity test, (WP+Purity bonus of 10) he rolls a 5, gaining three DoS giving him a resistance of 4 against his Purity damage of 12 (2d10+d5) leaving him with a Purity loss of 8. Bob survives the ordeal but suffers mentally and spiritually from the experience. Leaving him with Sanity 78 and Purity 92.
  4. Seems a bit heavy handed to me, also halving TB soak is a bit of a step-up in terms of lethality, especially for ogryns and Orks. My method isn't really taking damage at dfferent points in the hit (daigrams were hust for illustration of original point) it's actualy just applying soak after damage and imposing a minimum of one damage. me: hit - AV = damage - TB (to a minimum of one) 7 - 4 = 3 - 3 (minimum of 1) = 1 damage. 15 -4 = 11 - 3 (minimum of one) = 8 damage You: (hit - AV) - (TB/2) = Damage (to a minimum of one) (7-4) 3-(3/2 rounded up) = 1 damage. (15-4) 11-(3/2 rounded up) = 9 damage We're both approaching the same problem from different sides. surely this is all solved with a simple rule worded thus Reductions from Toughness Bonus cannot negate damage entirely, any hit that causes damage after applying reductions from armour causes at least a single point of damage.
  5. Maybe you should be playing Necromunda instead of OW (seriously, Necromunda is awesome.) Roleplaying is "just talking" that`s the thing that makes it so versatile. If you want precise measurements and physical implements then you should probably play TT games.
  6. I'm just saying war is awfully cruel and the 40k universe is horrendously tough at the best of times. If you as a GM aren't willing to be the guiding force behind the horror, unfairness and senseless tragedy of war then maybe running a RPG about expendable soldiers in the grimdark isn't for you. I'm not saying don't play OW, I'm saying you shoud make sure everyone involved knows what OW is before your players get upset by their weak squishy characters: a) getting cut down in a hail of friendly fire when they don't follow orders and wander into a artillery bombardment. b) getting punished for breaking military law. c) receiving nigh-suicidal orders. d) not getting the credit for their actions. I am in a OW game where we have lots of fun, but the fun is that of desperate men trying to do impossible things who know they are already utterly f-ed. Not wandering off mission willy-nilly and picking fights.
  7. Official reprimands, gear confications, floggings and transfers to penal battalions all work non-lethally to punish characters. That said if your players are honestly too sensitive to suffer through the horrible unfairness of life in 40k then they probably shouldn`t be playing OW, the grittiest of the FFG 40k lines. Also if you`re too worried about falling out with your firends to hurt their characters, maybe you shouldn`t be the one controlling the NPCs shooting at them.
  8. Leave it verbal, minitures have been one of the biggest tools in the dumbing down process that has ruined countless RPGs and almost killed P&P. If you absolutely must flash your models about use them as examples of things "this is what a commissar/lasgun/autocannon looks like" and such. If you absolutly cannot avoid it use a pad and pencil to sketch maps of combat locales, to aid players (and you) withkeepig track of where everyone is.
  9. Fluff actually specifically states that arbites courthouses have their own astropaths, one of the most important duties of the arbites is to defend them. After all where do you think all those distress calls from planets being attacked/suffering huge rebellions come from? The chief astropath of a planetary choir has control over all civilian interplanetary communications traffic. Remember that all interplanetary communications are conducted by astropathic messages. Just beacuse official bodies have a few astropaths permanently attatched from the planetary choir (or in the case of the inquisition probably their own small choir) doesn't change the fact the chief astropath still controls all the other communications. Think about all that includes: trade agreements, tithe calculations, decrees of the high lords, distress calls, ship hails, not to mention all the personal messages.
  10. Acolytes don't really have any official authority themselves, only derived authority from their master. Also an arbite's remit is really only crimes amounting to either treason or heresy is rigidly structured into (regional/planetary) jurisdictions. Most recruited arbites are likely out of their official jurisdiction too. Without offical orders from the arbites to support the covert operation he was caught for (which can be verified with a superior) or direct inquisitorial influence he will be in big rouble as he is essentially a rogue agent until he can prove useful enough to get a new ident or a pardon from his master. Notably this is a great time for you to reign him in by making him a priority target of local enforcers wanted posters with dead or alive bounties offered, the lot. Force him to play in a more subtle manner or face the unbridled wrath that cops reserve for a cop-killer.
  11. Guardsmen don't go home unless the are the colour guard or are appointed commander of a new regiment. They get retired in-situ to seed loyalist ex-military settlers on newly won worlds.
  12. My basic point is that this isn`t about "taking away" if anything this change makes things how they should have been all along. Geting hit hurts, avoid it if possible. A bullet/knife/lasbolt tears throuh your armour like it wasn`t there at all, hits your bare unprotected skin and bounces off? No, it glances you, leaving a painful graze/scratch/burn that you grit your teeth and ignore it but a dozen or so more of those will wear you down. I doon`t see how this helps NPCs more than PCs, unles the players tend to stand in the open chatting during gunfights. Most importantly no more high toughness low armour foes incapable of being stabbed to death with bayonets. OW has always been more about hiding in cover and supressing foes with massed fire and trying not to get hit than nonchalantly strolling into gunfire trusting your miraculous invulnerability.
  13. Does Toughness need any more value? It still negates damage, it just does't make you immune any more. If anything it adds value to armour and pen. If you really feel hard done by you could always use TB as a bonus to wounds. (My group has been doing this for ages anyway.)
  14. Sounds sensible Myrion, I haven't run into the RF stuff we don't use it. We use "ten again" for damage and call it eye of the emperor. When you think about it toughness is: how tough you are, not how invulnerable you are (that's what the unnatural in unnatural toughness is for.) Toughness is how well you can ignore injuries and get on with it, so no matter how tough a person with a flak jacket is if he's being punched and kicked hundreds of times times that would still kill him eventually. It doesn't matter how tough you are, hundreds of little injuries will plink you to death. The simple fact is if armour doesn't stop it, you are hurt, it isn't a matter of toughness.
  15. Hardly a good source? Where precisely do you propose to get official information on this fictional universe other than the only official source of fiction? Being that my previous post alluded to a book about the exact process of the topic in discussion? That said the novel Commissar also covers the a similar matter of regiments maintaining "continuous" service. Basically the process seems to be that when the bulk of troops are sufficiently worthless due to being killed or ruined by years of combat they are retired, a small core of the regiment becomes the colour guard and returns to their homeworld to raise a new regiment with the colours, designation and traditions of the old one. This is how units like the 1st Cadian for example can still exist despite it being thousands of years since their first founding. As for those tumpeting "only in death does duty end." This is entirely true, but there are many ways to serve, and somebody has to make the rations, fill out the forms and become drill abbots to train the progenium cadets.
×
×
  • Create New...