Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Inomine

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Trondheim, Sør-Trøndelag, Norway
  1. Oh right! That makes perfect sense! *Facepalm* Of course! For some reason I thought the table changed if you did multiple attacks in a turn or something, and thats why it became harder to hit. But it says AT right there, I was just too caught up in my misunderstanding to see it. Thank you very much for your help. I flipped back and forth through the book and it was driving me crazy
  2. I'm sorry if this seems like a dumb question. I bought the book rather recently and have begun to get a grasp of the rules and CC. But what continues to befuddle my understanding is this simple thing: How does Armor work? I have read and re-read the armor section, and everything I can see is that it says 'armor goes from 0 to 10 and the higher you have the better you are protected'.. But for the love of gaming, I cant find or understand just how it actually works. Can someeone please explain it to me, or tell me what page I should be checking again, or even better, both? Thanks.
  3. Now we're talking. Santiago, that is great stuff. Exactly what I had in mind. I will definetively be trying out this system in my game, probably on the next session. Although it is a few weeks from now, so don't expect any quick results. However, I do have some questions. Mostly about what you said in your first version. 1.2, isn't it? You wrote that a commander cannot command more than his Fellowship Bonus + various extras at once. What did you mean? In your example the commander can command 16 companies at once. What if his force consists of 20 or 30? Will the rest wait in line? Or will they act independently, with their own roll, like a sub-commander, wich will have a lesser skill? Or would it be more appropriate if the different PC's lead different companies, wich would result in a war with multiple forces. Also, what if it actually are 3 or more sides to the conflict? Any thoughts on that? I like how your system makes it so that unless you attack with vastly overwhelming forces, or roll very good, the enemy will have a chance to retaliate and it will exchange back and forth a couple've times before it reaches an conclusion. And how do you view damage to a company andor selection on wich company to be damaged next? If a company have 1 hit left, will it function at full capacity until it is reduced to 0 hits? And how to choose wether the guard company or the sentinel company will take the next round of hits? I like the stuff so far. Hope to see more And thanks for replying to my initial plea for help with this level of engagement
  4. Thanks for the reply. You bring up several good points. Even though I don't want to gloss over it too much, I don't want it to dominate the game. One session, two at the most. I'm not too sure how the players would like too much strategy and planning. But I got a varied group, so they're up for a little bit of everything, I think. But overall, I think they lean more into the 'hands on' departement. But I think the streamlined approach with some downtime would be the one that'd go best with both me and my players. I'm looking forward to see what ideas you might have
  5. War is an essential part of W40k, don't you think? My group are diving headlong into a small war, and I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle this. I've looked at the rules in the RT book for mass combat, but thats rules for single engagements, not war as a whole, and the particular conflict I have in mind is for between 500 and 1200 troops on each side. The way I'd like to do it is to have some kind of mechanicdie rolling to figure out how well (or bad) the fighting goes, and not going into too much detail of every engagement of the war. And then we could collectively describe how the war was going in game or something. And since a war would mostly be fought by the PC's troops, the PC's would have more of a commanding role. But ultimately, as the game is about the PCs they would have to descend on the battlefield for the important fight, wich could be combating the enemy leadership, doing a improtant sabotage mission, or whatever. But it should be a key element of the main conflict. My idea for this kind of war is that it won't be solved by one big engagement, but possibly a multitude of smaller engagements, possibly during several days, weeks or longer, depending on the conflict. Of course, narrating every engagement would be tedious and outright boring, so that won't do. What I'm thinking about is that it can be solved by a few dice rolls. Mainly Command and other skills that might apply for the PC's, and a more general roll, (whose 'stat' could be a more general percentage, like ship crew, instead spesific skills,) for the troops, wich will reflect their overall performance. These rolls would be rolled for both sides, like in a contested. And the results of the rolls could give a guideline of how much of the oppositions personell would be killed or rendered out of action. But I don't want everything to hinge on a singular roll, since that would seem to random. Does anyone have a more fleshed out system, or something like this? How have you handled these types of conflict? And lastly, do you have any input on my own idea? Too simple? Unneccesary? Brilliant? Genious? Okay, time to stop now. Tired.. But seriously. Any reply will be muy appreciado.
  • Create New...