Jump to content

Kosem

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    26

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Kosem

  2. Posted

    Despite my best attempts to locate an answer to the following questions I have been unable to. So please bear with me if this has been asked before.

    I recently started a new Rogue Trader game and one of my players is a dual-bolt-pistol-wielding Arch-Militant. She has a BS of 57, Weapon Master (Pistol), and Ambidextrous. She also aims to get the Two-Weapon Wielder talent at rank 2. They have begun to use burst-fire attacks and after reading the Two-Weapon Wielder talent, the burst fire actions, and the Two-Weapon Fighting section more than once my understanding is still fuzzy as to how these talents and action all interact.

    I'm confused by the descriptions of Two-Weapon Wielder, Semi-auto Burst, and Two-Weapon Fighting. Two-Weapon Wielder states: "When armed with two weapons of the same type, he may spend a Full Action to attack with both [weapons]. Both tests made to attack with the weapons suffer a -20 penalty...." Meanwhile, Semi-auto Burst states: "If the character has a pistol in each hand, both capable of semi-automatic fire, he may fire both with this action...." In addition the Two-Weapon Fighting section makes no mention of whether or not Two-Weapon Wielder would be required to fire two bolt pistols in a semi-auto burst.

    My questions are,

    1. Is Two-Weapon Wielder required to fire two bolt pistols semi-auto at the same time?

    2. If Two-Weapon Wielder is not required, what benefits does it garner as burst fire is generally considered to be better than single shots?

    3. When firing two bolt pistols semi-auto, would our Arch-Militant make one BS test for both pistols, or one test for each?

    4. If only one test is required, how do degrees of success interact as she is firing two pistols? Semi-Auto Burst grants 1 extra hit for each 2 degrees of success. Does this mean that she would need to get 6 degrees of success in order to hit with all 4 rounds fired?

    Thanks for your help!

  3. Posted

    nikink said:

    Unless I'm still doing something wrong, which is possible, the additional strength bonus fields don't recognise negative numbers, at all.

    In fact, now I'm playing with it to make this post, adding 10 to strength in the character generation page is increasing the damage bonus, but not the lift/carry/push numbers. And in the Equipment sheet, the damage bonus cells seemingly make no difference at all, positive or negative!

     

    Noticed this myself, I had wondered if it was due to me using Open Office or not. I was building pregens for an upcoming one shot and one of them has a good quality bionic arm, but doesn't seem to add the damage from that arm. Also noticed that good quality for melee weapons seems to be adding damage as well as the +5 WS. Balances out as far as I know according to the rules, but only due to the loadout for that particular character.

    Still an awesome tool, thanks for all the hard work.

  4. Posted

    Necrozius said:

    Since we're talking about starting skills, and to avoid starting a whole new thread, I have another question:

    Do the skills that you "train" during character creation count to your limit indicated on your career card?

    eg.: during character creation, I pay points to start off with three skills. My career card indicates that I can train a maximum of three skills. Does that mean that I cannot train any others?

    I assume that the answer is NO since you don't get specializations in those skills if you pay for the dedication bonus...

    AFAIK, your assumption is correct. Nothing you buy at character creation counts against the limits listed on your career card. Unless your GM has a house rule to the contrary.

  5. Posted

    Gitzman said:

    Dudes,

    There is a reasonable chance i will be running a session this weekend using MapTools.  We *may* record the session and post it as our first Reckless: Recorded Sessions.

    That would be awesome. I'd love to listen to an actual play session. The only recorded sessions of Warhammer that I could find are 2nd Edition games. It actually really helps me learn how to play and run a game to listen to these sessions.

  6. Posted

    Listened to both your episodes yesterday and today. Thanks for doing this, I'm really glad to see a podcast out there that dedicates itself to 3rd Edition Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Thank you especially for going over the Guides/Vaults and what is specifically in those. I had no idea that expansion components did not come in the vaults.

    I feel a lot better about grabbing the Core Set as a component user, GM, and group starter. Keep it up guys!

  7. Posted

    I have the core set and out of the stuff published so far I want to pick up:

    1. Creature Guide and Vault - This looks like a great GM resource.

    2. The Adventurers Toolkit - I'm big into giving my player options, and some of the careers in here are just awesome.

    3. Winds of Magic / Signs of Faith - The one thing that irked me about the core set was only having 3 faith choices and 3 college choices. Plus Tzeentch and Nurgle are up on the top of my list of awesome Chaos gods.

    Everything else is lower on my priority list as I dislike duplicating information and prefer to create my own adventures.

    Since money is a factor for me I'm probably going to pick up 1 & 2, as this will give me some great GM stuff and some stuff for my players, and dice! I'll just have to fight with my players about limited faith and college choices. gui%C3%B1o.gif

  9. Posted

    This is one thing that I think most fantasy RPGs get wrong about armor. Plate armor doesn't slow you down at all and it's really not that heavy.

    Plate is a nice solid 45-50 pounds at it's lightest (20 kg or so) but you can certainly try to swim in it. Its also distributed across the body, so you easily run, jump, do cartwheels, and so on.

    Of course the weight is going to vary greatly based on what the armor is made of. Iron is going to be heavier than tempered steel for instance. But given the rough state of technology in the Empire, black powder, I'd assume that most plate is going to be made from steel. To put it into prospective, modern soldiers carry more weight than a knight did plus it was far more evenly distributed, those giant backpacks are harder on you than a cuirass. So if a modern soldier can jump out of a boat with full combat gear and swim, I'd have no problem with a guy in plate doing the same.

    Now the water itself is going to create a larger issue than the weight of the armor. The resistance against all the loose flaps and dangling bits is going to be tough, but not impossible. I'd be more concerned if the character knows how to swim at all.

    Should swiming in armor warrant a penalty? Absolutely, but it should not be outright impossible. I'd probably give it 2 or 3 challenge dice at most, 1 or 2 for other armors. In my opinion it's more about water resistance and buoyancy than weight. You can also always walk along the bottom if its not too deep.

    What most people think of when they hear plate armor is actually tournament plate which was far thicker, heavier, and less maneuverable than combat plate. Its much better to get out of the way of the mace than to take the hit even in armor. Tournament plate was designed to keep people from getting killed when they had lances coming at them. For example, King Henry II of France was killed in a peaceful tournament because a lance punctured his helmet.

  11. Posted

    GullyFoyle said:

    Magic tends to work the way any given culture thinks it should in Warhammer. It works one way for greenskins, it works differently for dwarves, it worked in yet a different way for the first necromancer, and it quite possibly works differently for priests (though you'll be hunted to death for mentioning it).


    And that's why I love magic in this setting. I love the sheer variety of ways that magic seemingly work, it works one way for the Elves, another for the Empire. Even different human cultures have different ways of using magic. See Kislev's Ice Magic and Brettonia's Damsels. Everything from dwarven Runesmithing to Ogre Gut Magic. Imperial and Elven High Magic is just scratching the surface of what the setting provides magic wise.

    Though for my upcoming game I'd probably allow an elven mage, but they would be just starting out in their studies of a single wind, and on some errand for a master back in Ulthuan. But even then I'd encourage a human wizard over an elf if for no other reason than simplicities sake down the line once that elf has "mastered" their first wind and wants to start studying another.

  12. Posted

    Darrett said:

    I'm fairly certain Elves do use individual winds at times but can also combine them, which is what is called "High Magic".

    That is 100% correct.

    In fact, the entire magical college system that the Empire uses is a creation of the High Elven Mage Teclis. He taught humans how to see all of the different winds but how to manipulate only one. I imagine that there is likely some resentment among human wizards for denying them the ability to manipulate more than one wind. You can find this and more in the Tome of Mysteries book, pgs. 5-6. gui%C3%B1o.gif

  14. Posted

    So after getting a core set over the holidays and going through everything I realized that I really need to organize all of these cards, standups, tokens, and so on. I was wondering how everyone handles all the bits that come in the different sets. For now all I've got is rubber bands to separate the cards into different decks, a bag for the dice, stands, and punchboard bits. The punchboard bag is especially difficult to find stuff in.

    The first thing that came to mind was a tackle box to sort all the stuff out.  What do you guys use to keep stuff in a semblence of order?

  15. Posted

    I actually did tone down the bonuses to a +5 or a +10 for something really awesome. +20 was just too much, my players were stomping stuff they weren't supposed to.

    As to giving out xp, I prefer not to hand out xp unless all the characters are going to get it. I've played in games where the GM handed out xp based on how well you did in combat and on other rolls. In the end, we ended up with some characters that were twice as high in levels as others, and the GM was forced to throw huge encounters at us to challenge the higher level characters. This tended to kill off the lower level characters as well. Ever since I've always prefered to keep all my players at the same amount of xp.

    I can see how some players would love getting an xp bonus over an immediate bonus to a roll though.

  17. Posted

    Aureus said:

     

    People generally get annoyed with the attempt to justify FSMs within cannon, not with people who say "Screw it, I'm just gonna hand wave an FSM into the game for the sake of a good time."

    This is ultimately what my group agreed to for simplicity's sake. We just didn't want to bother with dealing with rules conversions and a myriad of possible imbalances. It's not canon, but we're playing this game to have fun. I'd rather have my group laughing and carrying on about how they took down that Ork Warboss rather than them bickering about whether Faith powers are unbalancing the game or one player being too weak compared to the others. No one in my group is bothered by me hand waving it. I'm sure that there are some who would be, but whatever. It works for us.

  18. Posted

    This is just a small house rule that I use in all games that I run. Though I think that it is very appropriate to Deathwatch. I will warn you that it is partially a buffing mechanic and partially a way to get players into what their characters are doing. So your mileage may vary based on how powerful you like your PCs to be.

    The Rule of Cool

    At any time a player may describe their characters action in dramatic detail and gain a bonus to a single roll based on that action. Originality counts and a repeated description does not garner a bonus.

    Warning: Graphic details to follow.

    Example: Brother Bjorn of the Space Wolves is charging a horde. "I break out in front of the Guardsmen line, howling at the top of my lungs. Ripping my chainsword out of its sheath as it roars to life. I leap into the traitor horde, lashing left and right with my chainsword, punching a traitor in the face as I cut another down." Such a description of the action that Bjorn is taking would certainly garner a bonus. The bonus to his Weapon Skill or damage for this attack would depend solely on the GM's discretion. The GM should follow up his players descriptions with the effects of their actions in equally dramatic details. Following up on Bjorn's attack assuming he succeeds, "As you leap into the fray you land on a traitor, crushing him beneath your boots with a sickening crunch. Screams echo around you as your chainsword howls in delight at their deaths. One traitor tries to sneak up on, but you notice him just in time to punch him turning his face into an unrecognizable pulp."

    End graphic details.

    I use this rule to reward players for doing something awesome and dramatic. It has no mechanical effect other than the bonus to a roll of the players choosing. It must be used immediately and cannot be saved up. I've personally found that this gets players out of the habit of, "I shoot the horde" and the GM out of "Ok, he takes 5 damage." Which in my opinion can be a little dull.

    This has gotten to the point where if I forget about it, my players will say "Wait! Don't I get to describe what I'm doing?" or if I forget to describe what their action does, "So, what happens!?"

    I realise that Marines are already incredibly powerful and that another buffing mechanic may not be all that great, which is why I keep the bonus low. A +10 or for a really great description a +20. In my experience its gotten my players much more into their characters and into the game itself. I hope that it will do the same for some of you as well.

  19. Posted

    UncleArkie said:

    Return to Base would be -  Brothers return to the fortress keep.

    On the move - We are onwards to glory.

    Lay down suppressive fire - Unleash the fury of your weapons brothers, so that the enemy may not observe us.

    These are bad examples, but it was what I could come up with.

     

     - Arkie

    Cool idea. I really like "We are onwards to glory." Could shorten it to "Onwards to glory!" if you wanted.

    Some more ideas, not that I know anything about military lingo.

    Take that location - "Claim it in the name of the Emperor!"

    Fire at will - "Show them your zeal Brothers!"

    Area Secured - "Cleansed and purified."

    Aerial Assualt (Jumppacks) - "Death from above!"

    And so on. My players will love this. It'll help them get into the feel of the game.

    Also, thank you Dawn of War games. :)

  20. Posted

    Charmander said:

     

    As for players being wierded out by playing a different gender, I totally get it, especially when that gender is represented, and even more so when you're trying to be serious about it and play the role well.  While there is no *technical* reason females can't play male space marines, I think you should consider personal psycology, personal acting ability, personal understanding of the opposite gender.

     

     

    I had actually not considered the concept of a particular gender being represented at the table when playing any game, not just Deathwatch. When I have played as the opposite gender, that gender has never been represented at the table. And I honestly would feel more uneasy in that situation than in one where where that is not the case.

    I'd like to know your opinion of what one should do as a gamemaster in this situation. It's a very good point, thanks for mentioning it.

  21. Posted

    MILLANDSON said:

    *honestly doesn't get it*

    To be honest, neither do I. I've played female characters in the past. I'll admit it was a bit awkward at first. But when it comes to other people, I don't feel like it is anyone's place to judge them based on the fact that they feel more comfortable playing a character of the same gender. I understand that Space Marines have left the concept of gender behind them. I've explained such to my players. But I can't tell them what they should think. The best that I believe I can do is to give my players options to work with.

  22. Posted

    MILLANDSON said:

    Plus, take into account that whilst all Marines came from male stock, they are Space Marines now, they have left such petty things as gender roles behind them, it just doesn't matter anymore. There is no reason at all that a female player can't play a Space Marine.

    I actually have two female players and one is doing precisely this. The other isn't as comfortable playing a male character so we've hit a snafu there. We've talked about a few of the options in this thread. One of them should work out fine. As long as your player is ok with playing a male character, go for it. If not, then you'll want to look into some other options.

  23. Posted

    LeBlanc13 said:

     

    I'm contemplating running a Deathwatch game in my local area with my regular gaming group.

    One player in particular will be running a Black Templars marine. The player himself is a huge fan of the Black Templars and has more than 10,000 points of TT Black Templars models. He's been talking about how he's looking forward to playing a zealotous character who hates psykers and I've got at least one player in the group that wants to play a psyker (Rune Priest to be exact.)

    Sooooo, at this point, I see a player vs player conflict coming before we've even started character creation.

    The rulebook states in the Black Templars descriptions that the BT's selected for Deathwatch, while hating psykers are selected for their ability to work side by side with them in the Deathwatch. It also goes on to say the BT marine will spend lots of "off screen" time in contemplation and meditation to continue tolerating the psyker character.

    What if the player of the BT doesn't want to play his character that way? I already see where this is going and it's going to be VERY interesting, if not problematic.

    Should I sit down with the BT player and go over how his character should act? or should I just let the two players deal with the issues of how they want to play their characters from the start?

    As it looks so far, I think the group make up will be 1 Black Templar, 3 Space Wolves (including the Rune Priest), 1 Storm Warden and I think 1 Dark Angel. I'm not sure what their specialties will be other than the Rune Priest at this time. We're still in the early stages of getting ready to play.

    Anyone have any ideas how they would handle this from the start that they'd care to share?

     

     

    Yes, yes, yes. Sit down with that player and talk to him about it. Do not to attack him about it, just ask about it casually. Do it during character creation if you haven't made characters yet. See if the idea that there will be a Rune Priest in the Kill Team would be an issue for his character, or if his character would be willing to tolerate the psyker's presence. Its important that you ask the question about his character and not him. I don't know your group but I could imagine that  the Space Wolves would tend to back up their brother and that this sort of behavior could turn against the Black Templar character very quickly.

    On the same token I would ask the same question about the relationship between the Dark Angel and the Space Wolves. After all their chapters tend not to get along. Both of these scenarios can lead to some brilliant roleplay and I've been in and run games where player characters start off distrustful of one another, but at some point or another form a grudging respect of one another. Sometimes these characters become even become friends. When it happens it can lead to some truly memorable moments. This sort of thing occurs more than once in the Space Wolves novels, so there is a precedent.

    Its all going to boil down to your group and how they plan to roleplay their characters. If your Black Templar is going to be outright hostile and unwilling to tolerate the psyker despite his usefulness to the Kill Team and the fact that he is still a Battle-Brother, you might have a issue. I've found that just talking with your players, or GM and fellow players if you are a player, tends to resolve issues very quickly and easily as long as everyone involved behaves maturely. The trick when starting these conversations is not to go on the offensive, be polite, and ask calmly.

    I'd love to hear about how this goes, you have a decent mix of chapters and some possible animosities. Thats partially what Deathwatch is all about, different chapters with very different views of the galaxy working together against the enemies of man, overcoming their predjudices and realising that there is value in other viewpoints. Heck, maybe the Rune Priest becomes very cautious in the use of his pysker powers and learns respect the Black Templar's caution of psykers.

×
×
  • Create New...