Jump to content

Iku Rex

Members
  • Content Count

    242
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Iku Rex

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Lalaland, Norway
  1. Let's try to keep this straight. I'm the one advocating the mainstream opinion. I have posted a respected source, and included the reasoning behind the numbers. Your indisputable source is a single sentence one guy wrote on his webpage. Then you added some random pdfs you found with Google. But you are incapable of explaining why they are relevant, or of quoting the relevant part. How very odd. You also seem to have overlooked my little experiment above. Let's try again, with more detail. A sphere with a 5 parsec radius around the Sun has a volume of around 524 cubic parsecs. Thus, your prediction is that we'll find around 500 stars in this volume of space. My number suggests around 70. If only there was some way to test these predictions! But wait, there is. After all, we have "bazillions of hours of observations made by astronomers with considerable education and access to this world's best telescopes", as you put it above. I wonder what they've found... Oh, right. Around 60 stars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs (I know, I know - you'll probably be along shortly to explain how anything written on Wikipedia is automatically wrong, with no need to offer any evidence.) For future reference, "fluff" is the story elements of the game – characters, setting, plot, flavor, etc. You seem to be very confused Errant Knight. We're talking about the 40K universe. Not your special snowflake homebrew setting. I would however love to see your "real world" numbers for human settlement patters and safe warp routes between stars in the Koronus Expanse, or trade figures and freighter cargo capacity. I didn't even know scientists had cracked the secret of warp travel in the "real world". This is very exiting! And scary. Are they taking the necessary precautions to protect against demonic incursions?! Is this information perhaps also hidden somewhere in the paper you posted earlier?
  2. Yeah, I'm pretty confident that's BS. One star per cubic parsec means we should find around 500 stars within 5 parsecs of the Sun. Do we? Nope. Maybe 60. (Depending on how you define "star".) There may well be more of course, but 450 more seems excessive. My guess is your guy forgot a "0." . Make it 0.1 stars per cubic parsec and you're probably not far off. As for the 0.004 per cubic LY estimate, it is not some random number made up by a Wikipedia-editor. So, 0.004 is actually the high estimate. Posting random pdfs you found with Google isn't going to convince me that you have some special insight. If any of those links contain relevant information, by all means, refer me to to the important bit. Off-hand, that sounds very unlikely, both with regards to the fluff and to the real world science. I don't think you did. It's hard to offer more specific criticism, since you gave no in-depth justification for most of your numbers. Not that I care much. It makes more sense to start by guesstimating the number of ships and/or inhabited worlds based on the fluff. Then you go from there. If the fluff suggests that there are, say, a few hundred systems in the Expanse populuated by humans, any line of reasoning that concludes that there are 10 000 is flawed. I'm not sure how you got from "more like 30 000 from what I could find" and calculations of 28 000 and 32 000, to "holy gospel"... You're the one getting exited because I pointed out one problem (out of several) with your "reasonable numbers".
  3. Stellar density near Sol is estimated as 0.004 stars per cubic light year. 8 million cubic light years * 0.004 = 32 000 stars. Also, from the Core Rulebook (page 315): "Each Segmentum is divided into sectors varying in size according to local demands and stellar density. A typical sector might encompass seven million cubic light years, equivalent to a cube with sides almost 200 light-years long." (7 million cubic light years * 0.004 = 28 000 stars, and a 191 LY cube.) Sector sizes vary depending on "local demands and stellar density", so sectors closer to the rim will probably be a bit bigger on average, while having the same approximate number of stars. I figure most of those star systems are worthless and/or effectively inaccessible by warp travel.
  4. More like 30 000 from what I could find. (Based on the assumption that the Koronus Expanse is roughly the size of a typical sector, a 200 LY cube.)
  5. Chorda is in Edge of the Abyss. PF 82. Edit: And Winterscale has PF 101. (Incidentally, Edge of the Abyss also has the Rogue Trader Jonquin Saul, with PF 93. He seems like a good choice if a smaller Dynasty wants a powerful ally.)
  6. Why not Zoidberg a clawed fiend?
  7. I think it's fairly obvious that it's supposed to be the stats of an average creature. Out of curiousity, how are you planning on hauling your pet around? It's big.
  8. He's ignoring the availability rules in chapter 5, and he's ignoring most of the rules for Acquisition Tests in chapter 9. This is not using said rules "as intended". (To be fair though, Kasatka isn't actually saying "the acquisition rules aren't flawed". I may have been too quick on the trigger there.)
  9. I take it you're talking about this rule from page 215: "The ship with the larger Crew Population value will receive a +10 bonus to its character’s Command Test for every full 10 points difference in Crew Population between the two ships. The ship with the higher remaining Hull Integrity provides a +10 bonus to its character’s Command Test for every full 10 points difference in Crew Population between the two ships." IMNSHO it's an obvious copy-paste error. It's supposed to be: "The ship with the larger Crew Population value will receive a +10 bonus to its character’s Command Test for every full 10 points difference in Crew Population between the two ships. The ship with the higher remaining Hull Integrity provides a +10 bonus to its character’s Command Test for every full 10 points difference in Hull Integrity between the two ships."
  10. Hm, that does seem right based on RAW. Technically it talks about "base Availability Modifier". I didn't notice that. But I think the likely intent is that you use the total Acquisition Modifiers for each component. It makes more sense. A "Good Quality (-10) Rare Availability (-10)" gun ought to be roughly equal to a "Common Quality (+0) Very Rare Availability (-20)" gun or a "Best Quality (-30) Average Availability (+10)" gun. They all have the same total Acquisition Modifier, -20. So, adding an upgrade to one of those three guns ought to increase the acquisition difficulty by the same amount. Instead, by RAW, adding a Very Rare motion predictor to the first gun brings the Acquisition Modifier to -35, the second -25, and the third -55. I see no good reason why it should work like that.
  11. The OP is a little confusing - I suspect you've misunderstood some things. First, this is the rule for combining acquisitions: So, if you "start" with a hellpistol with an Acquisition Modifier of +10 you can add two upgrades with an Acquisition Modifier of +10 or less each to end up with a total Acquisition Modifier of +0. (I'd make one of them a motion predictor.) As for scale; The point is, Scale is usually not about "number of items", but "number of users". Craftsmanship doesn't usually matter for Weapon Upgrades.
  12. The Manufactorum as written is not very useful. It can only manufacture simple items, in small quantities. "The GM is final arbiter of what can and cannot be manufactured, but generally it should not be more than a few dozen of a Common item." It's main purpose is to make simple parts for starship repairs. And it's more of a "workshop", than a "factory". (OTTOMH fix: a +10 bonus to Tech-Use and Trade [Armourer] checks to build and repair items a character can build more advanced items if they have the necessary prefabricated components [slightly easier acquisition check than the real thing] difficulty and build time depends on availability and craftsmanship.)
  13. Exterminatus by macrobattery does not seem very efficient, rules-wise. Macrobatteries deal damage in a 10 square kilometer radius. The total surface area of Earth (as an example of a habitable world), including oceans and ice caps, is around 510 000 000 sq km. A "strategic turn" in the ground combat rules (which is where the bombardment rules are) is 4 hours. If there was no overlap, and the starship could fire non stop, it would take 510 000 000 / 10 (blast area) / 6 (volleys per day) / 365 (days per year) = around 23 000 years for a single ship to saturate a planet's surface using those rules. And sure, there's more to it than that. The bombardment rules involve maneuvering to hit a fairly specific area - you could no doubt speed things up a lot if you just wanted to hit the planet ... somewhere. And the planet might become uninhabitable long before 23 000 years. But still, planets are big. If you want to level a city, that's all in a day's work. If you want to cleanse the surface of life, you better have a sector fleet and a lot of spare ammunition on hand. Or special weapons designed for Exterminatus. (Of course, there's always the astreoid-option, time consuming as it may be.)
  14. How does this sentence fit together? It seems to suggest that you use Perception for shooting, which is certainly not RAW. Seek the Path navigator power from The Navis Primer...
×
×
  • Create New...