Jump to content

Macharias the Mendicant

Members
  • Content Count

    274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Macharias the Mendicant

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  1. Boss Gitsmasha said: Also, the no-Tearing when the power field is active seems stupid to me. It means Moritat lose their one advantage once power weapons become available, and have nothing else to make up for their weakness, which is a pretty crippling drawback. They become obsolete as soon as the party buys its first chainsword, which has Tearing with or without a Moritat wielding it. The reasoning that FFG made behind their decision is silly, too, drawing comparisons to a marksman with a pistol switching to a shotgun later on. This didn't really seem like an apt comparison. Moritat gain Tearing with blades because they specialize with blades to the exclusion of all else, even blunt melee weapons. They know where to cut, which parts of the body spill the most blood when cut a particular way, and how to inflict the maximum amount of pain and damage with a blade. A power field should make little or no difference to the handling of the weapon. The reason FFG gave was that it's the power field doing the cutting, not the blade, but this seems irrelevant; it's still a sword being used by a master swordsman, so how does it affect the assassin's skill at inflicting maximum damage with a bladed weapon? And from a crunch standpoint, the Moritat has literally nothing else going for them. Even at low levels, they're at a disadvantage compared to a gun wielder, and once the party buys a chainsword their skills become redundant. You're basically paying 300 XP for a crippling drawback and the wonderful experience of rules-lawyering over which weapons you are or aren't allowed to use. Honestly, I chose to make a Moritat knowing full well it was the sub-obtimal choice. In fact, that's what I love best about my Moritat character. In order to get an advantage, to eliminate the advantage of most ranged weapons, I have to be cleaver and sneaky. That's fun. Charging into battle with a well-armed and armoured group of Xenos… that's not my department. If the enemy commander needs to be eliminated, however… It has also been mentioned in dozens of threads before: a Moritat is an assassin speiclizing in bladed weapons, most of which are melee. If a Vindicare can sit 2 kilometers away and blast a target with his Exitus rifle, the Moritat chooses to get up close. Chain weapons and Power Weapons make noise (even an 'idle' chainsword should, to my mind, sound like an idling chain saw; the Power Field hums and crackles with energy). A Primitive bladed weapon does not. You're right: in toe to toe combat with a bunch of Chaos Space Marines, the Moritat is not doing to well. But that's not what they're designed to be good at. The point of the Moritat is to allow players to play a character from a twisted, psycho murder-cult that makes less-than-ideal descisions about weapons because it's a matter of religious conviction. The Moritat package allows me to play that and have a good time doing it. And that crazy zealotry is why I only activate the power fields on my weapons when it's clear that nothing else is working. I like it that way. In that case, I'm not looking for an edge (pun intended) I'm just realizing that my preferred method of killing things won't work here. I'll add as well that there are alternatives to Power Fields as upgrades for weapons. The Tox Dispenser is a personal favourite. (There are, again, plenty of threads where this is discussed.) Not to mention, being able to use two power swords with Blademaster, Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Wielder, Assassin's strike, etc. Isn't exactly a crippling drawback. Even if they don't get Tearing as part of the deal. In the end though, was there nothing you could work out with your GM to make the Moritat fun for you to play? As PnPgamer said, there's not reason your group can't decide to apply the tearing to Power weapons. I like them as FFG has ruled but if I had a player for whom it was a huge problem, I would at least consdier some alternatives. (As to your assessement of FFG's rationale: I don't see why, as the designers of the game, they couldn't be justified in making the ruling you cited above.)
  2. Darth Smeg to the rescue! Yup, sounds like we have pretty much the same take on this. Hope I was able to help.
  3. Jeans_Stealer said: I'm dragging up an old discussion, buuuuut… I tried adding some 'Only War' Rules into my game yesterday, and they went down swimmingly, including… Medicae. Difference was, I had the Only War Beta Update. FIRST AID IS NOW AMAZING. -10 for heavily wounded, or -10 for each critical wound, with other modifiers for location and equipment, but a success removes wounds equal to the medic's intelligence bonus PLUS one for every degree of success. The tending medic rolled really, really well while using a supplied medi-bay and a first-aid kit, and a character on 0 wounds got 9 wounds back. W.T.H. I personally like the new Medicae rules. Yes, in the right circumstances, it can make for some crazy successes but then again, who wants to spend weeks lying around waiting to get better to go back out into the fray? And how often, in the field, will such crazy successes be possible? Healing is always a very tricky thing to manage in RPGs: the realist in me wants the gritty, crippling, slow, torturous healing. The action-loving part of me likes the idea of playing 'broken but unbowed,' banged up but still in the action. What I particularly like here is that it makes the Medic a very interesting choice.
  4. I believe that Only War's description of All Out Attack is clearer in this respect. But KommissarK is correct.
  5. Jeans_Stealer said: So Macharias, You let them have one roll. If they fail, they cannot roll again until the market circumstances change (but can they still get another character to look for it instead?) In terms of time, it takes them the length of time stated on the aquisitions table minus degrees of success for a successful roll, or is equal to that time if failed (and wasted)? Is that how you do it? (In addition this discussion led me to read deeper into RAW about the "paid per 400exp" problem, but that should be in another discussion due to the length and breadth of the scope, not here. The 'defining paragraph' on page 29 'It's a Hard Life'.) The gamers I play with have a strong sense of what is technically allowed by the rules but against the spirit of them: rolling Inquiry then having someone else try for the same roll stinks to us so it never really came up: "GM says not today, so let's move on boys!" If you really want a ruling (which is entirely my own opinion and has no basis in the rules): impose a 1 roll rule. You roll and fail, then your buddy can't try for you. In that spirit, it makes sense to treat the Inquiry as a collaborative roll: have the best Inquiry score roll, with the others contributing successes. (Unless, of course, a character wants to rely on their own abilities to acquire an item in secret, without the other characters knowing about it…) Game mechanics like these are intended (I feel) primarily as a way of resolving disputes. When there's no reason to dispute anything, the rules serve no purpose. Also, when the player provides good role-playing or justification and the GM : Player: "Can I have a power armour?" GM: "No. You're on a feral world." Player: "But there's a small chance, according to the rules…" GM: "No, you're on a feral world." Player: "But I want to try." GM: "FIne. Roll, but with a -40." Player: "But that makes the roll impossible. "GM: Exactly. You're on a Feral world." Player: "Can I have a power armour." GM: "Well, you're on a small Imperial World. Might be something suitable, but hard to come by, and you don't have three weeks to sit around. Would you be willing to pay at least 150% price? Or settle for poor quality?" Player: Hmmm… that's not too exciting, no. Is there some way I can find one anyhow? Thomas has Administratum contacts (Peer). Maybe he can arrange something?" GM: "Actually, that sounds plausible. Challenging but plausible. Thomas, would your character - Adept Jeremiah - be willing to try his luck on Kraddock's behalf? There's a departmento munitorum office…" Boom. A role-playing opportunity is born. Perhaps a subplot. Perhaps the payment is a small favour. Player will eventually get what they want. Everybody wins. No need for a roll. Honestly, we very rarely use the tables.
  6. Never liked the wealth system in this game. It seemed like a rather useless mechanic. We've just decided that players received a steady stipend from their Inquisitor as well as the occasional "equip yourselves" bonus. Of course, anything the Acolytes are able to repossess is fair game.
  7. As the others have said: Kill Markers are not worth it. If you have a well-defined objective then everybody should have a clear idea of when that has been achieved. Whether one uses Kill Markers or not don't really affect how much freedom the PCs should have in completing their mission. I certainly haven't felt constrained as a player. The only use I could see for Kill Markers would be for something similar to the RT Endeavour points for large-scale operations spanning multiple 'missions.' But those are not generally worth bothering with either.
  8. van Riebeeck said: For meta-gaming reasons, I will swap my navigator for an Explorator (and the present explorator will take my Navis Nobilite post), so I am reading up a bit on the Adeptus Mechanicus and the Cult of Mars (for the RP background) while at the same time familiarising myself with the practical rule aspects of playing a Tech Priest. But I have am flabbergasted by the quick combination of Tech-Use bonuses a character can recieve on its skill. - Combi Tool (+10% on Tech-Use) - Electro graft Use (+10% on Tech-Use whilst connected to a data port) - MIU (+10% on Tech-Use via MIU links) - Utility Mechadendrite (+10% on all Tech-Use) I have probably forgotten a few of them (if there are some other good things I should know, I'd be happy to hear about them). But what I am wondering is which of these stack, and which don't. My gut feeling is that it depends on the situation. I can see the Combi Tool and the Utility Mechadendrite stacking while hurriedely fixing the tracks of a Rhino and the Electro graft use and the MIU seem made to reinforce each other while delving in the memory of an ancient cogitator loom. But what are the practical experiences with this? Friedrich van Riebeeck Most bonuses, I would assume, do stack. However, having everything stack at once generally means that the tech-priest is usinging Tech_use in the best possible circumstances. This is not likely to be the case as often when away from the ship. Also, part opf the reason for the stacking bonuses is that some of the tech out there should impose some pretty monumental penalties on the rolls. Just be careful that you're not stacking the same bonus twice: for instance, I think that the +10 the Utility Mechadedrite gives you is from the combi-tool which is included in the mechadendrite. Obvisoulsy, having another combi-tool would just be redundant and you wouldn't get the bonus for both.
  9. Assuming unlimited time and money to poke around, ask questions and place orders, any character can eventually find what they are looking for: maybe they order it and have it brought from off-world afte ra year of Inquisry… but that's just not generally useful. For anything that is common enough based on the current locale, we just handwave it: no need to make any rolls to find a half dozen unmarked autopistols on a hive world, or las pistol chargepacks on a Forge World. Even for rarer items, DM caveat is our most commonly used "system": ie: does it make sense based on setting and contacts to dig this up? When we do roll, we treat it a bit like Profit Factor and Acquisitions from RT: you get the one roll for the Acquisition(s) that you want to make. If you fail, you don't get to make another check until "circumstances change" (ie: until the GM decides that the market has changed sufficiently, or the PCs go to a new location.) If they succeed, the the levels of success determine how quickly you find it, how much you need to pay for it and potentially other aspects such as quality. So, if you wanted a chainsword and rolled 5 degrees of success, the GM might decide that you not only find the chainsword you were looking for, but you get it very quickly and cheap - which is great because you need to leave the planet in a hurry. Alternately, you pay a premium but the chainsword that you manage to find is Good Craftsmanship instead… but it involves sticking around a few more days with that Hive gang still looking for revenge for what you and your Acolytes did to their bosses.
  10. Jeans_Stealer said: All signs point to win. Yup. Couldn't agree more.
  11. Plynkes said: "Hast seen the White Kraken?" ++Message received by Chorda Vessel Rachel from the Pequod during exchange of mail, near Kain's Abyss, 817.M41. "Aye, aye! And I'll chase him round the Cauldron, and round the Siren Star, and round the God-Emperor's Scourge, and to the Rifts of Hecaton before I give him up. And this is what ye have shipped for, men! To chase that white Kraken over all sides of the Expanse, till he spouts black blood and rolls tentacles out." “Vengeance on a dumb brute!" cried Void Master Starbuck, "that simply smote thee from blindest instinct! Madness! To be enraged with a dumb thing, Lord Captain Ahab, seems blasphemous.” “Oh, my Captain! My Lord Captain! Noble soul! Grand old heart, after all! Why should any one give chase to that hated thing! Away with me! Let us fly these deadly regions! Let us home!” That was pretty epic. Plynkes for the win!
  12. Plushy said: We've had so many Sergeant arguments already. The general consensus: each Specialization is less a hard, distinct concept or rank and more of an archetype. Your "Heavy Gunner" is actually just a Private (or the Guard equivalent), just the same as his buddies. The "Sergeant" is less a ranking individual and more "the guy who can command from the front." That's what he does. Yeah, I don't see the need to match the Specialisation with the military rank. I'm sure there are millions of "sergents" and "captains" who are just very charismatic Weapon Specialists, or whatever.
  13. I don't have my book with me, but I'm pretty sure that Nameless2all has it right: it replaces a given rank. So it's a one to one trade. Ex: My Assassin took the Moritat Alternate Rank at R6. It replaces the Death Adept rank. R7 and R8 are Nihilator and Imperator Mortis (I think those are the right names…)
  14. Nameless2all said: From my experience at GMing RT, the Objective Point based system is a little daunting at first. Especially if the PC's somehow create a Universe Mass Conveyor Transport ship all decked out in trade endeavors that exceeds +1050 points if fully loaded. Yea, insane. Anyhoot, when referring to page 278 of RT, it makes it a little easier to keep track of it all. I attempted to not utilize the point based system once, and it didn't feel as rewarding for the players as I thought it was. In the end, I converted all their achievements over to points and they came out on top. All you really have to do is this. 1) Figure out if is a Lesser, Greater, Grand, or Meta Endeavor. Examples are in the RT pg 279 and ItS pg 214 for Meta. 2) Figure out how many points they need to achieve said Endeavor. Once again refer to the examples. 3) Distribute those points between Objectives within that Endeavor (these do not have to be exact Objectives, just more or less open ended ones) 4) Keep track of what the PC accomplish and don't accomplish, and give them points based off the difficulty you initially set it as. Link your Objectives to ones that are similar to what they accomplish. 5) Remember that PC's will always go different routes than what you thought of, and accomplish other things outside the scope of the Endeavor/Objectives. Go with this and give them points relating to what they accomplished, and/or warn them that this route they are following could turn into a totally different Endeavor, so they could save it for later. This will help you to create an Endeavor for it instead of thinking on your feet for during the game. And that's pretty much it. As for ships with components that add points to certain Endeavors, this only works if that component is carrying what you need. Say you have a Barracks. If it's empty, this nets you +0 for Military Endeavors. Even an empty Main Cargo Hold isn't really going to help you any, unless you are looting stuff. And as HappyDaze mentioned, a cap might need to be set. I have recently decided that a cap of half of the Endeavor is the max the PC's can go over. Meaning, if the Endeavor was initially set at +4 PF for accomplishing it, then the max they can get is +6 PF. This forces the PC's to choose larger Endeavors to meet their needs, instead of min maxing smaller ones. Hope this helps some. That was super helpful actually. Our current GM just tends to handwave it based on what our goals are and such. (He does a great job and runs a great game - this is no slight on him. In fact, that may just be his strong suit: he's got a great feel for balancing his game with story and PF advancements.) I'm planning to run an RT game soon and I'd like a little more structure to endeavours. This framework lkooks great! Thanks a lot!
  15. They do both sound fun. Looking forward to playing a tech-priest fior the first time since I started playing FFG games about 3 years ago!
×
×
  • Create New...