Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Charmander2

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Washington, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. CrunchyDemon said: Not a Dark Heresy player, so I'm in the dark on specifics. I understand that an Ascended character has a ton of skills and awesome gear. But in combat… using DW enemies… can a Sister of Battle keep up the pace with damage output versus single enemies as the marines can? I would imagine they can't take nearly the amount of incoming damage as a marine can. But if I was a girl and I didn't want to play a marine, I'd be willing to take my chances as a more fragile character. Search for Female Space Marine or FSM and try to carve your way through the rants for the good crunch. There is no short answer to this- it all depends. You can use relics or the crazy skill system from Ascension (it is very crazy, btw, the themes in that book are far different from the themes in DW) or the Sister's fate system but you'll never get a 1:1 ratio. This will simply put more work on the GM to ensure that everyone in the group is having fun. Super simple solution is make them a Sister but just use the Marine build; fluff away the organs and the like as genetic implants or something that are super expensive and very rare but for game rule purposes do the same thing. Then come up with a reason the two branches of the Inquisition are working so closely together. Edit: More direct response to your post: No. Without unnatural characteristics and astartes gear other characters cannot dish out or take damage in the same way. Other characters might do well in specific circumstances, but things like hordes tend to tear up non-Astartes characters quickly, and they don't tend to have weapons that do as much damage with as high a rate of fire as the Astartes gear.
  2. Macharias the Mendicant said: Through the first 3 ranks of advancement I was just about the only character to regularly spend cohesion but of late the other players have started figuring out how useful it can be to have an extra melee or ranged attack 'for free.' So we've been 'running low/out' much more commonly.Thankfully I'm an Ultramarine Tactical Marine with super-Fellowship and a starting cohesion of 12. Don't forget the Ultramarine's Rally Cry, and don't forget to spend all your fate to either heal or restore lost cohesion at the end of every session.
  3. vyrago said: ok….still trying to wrap my head around this. it states on page 219 of the core book that Chapter specific squad abilities are only useable by members of the same chapter. kay….got it. on page 5 of the Errata, it says to add “Battle-Brothers may activate the Chapter abilities of their own Chapter even if the squad leader is not of the same Chapter, but these abilities will still only affect the Battle-Brother and any members of his Kill-Team that belong to the same Chapter.” then….on page 228, oath-taking it says "In addition to listed Codex Squad mode abilties the kill-team will also have access to their leader's Chapter Squad mode abilities" SO….do I have this right? example: The squad leader is a Dark Angel Tactical Marine. While in squad mode, he activates his Chapter Squad ability SUSTAINED SUPPRESSION (dark angels). Because he is the leader, all members of the kill-team in squad mode can benefit from this regardless of chapter. Standing next to the leader is an Ultramarine Devastator, he also wishes to use a Chapter Squad Mode ability LEAD BY EXAMPLE. But because he is NOT the squad leader for this mission and there are no other Ultramarines in the kill-team only he can benefit from its effects. Squad and solo mode is the hardest part for many of us to get From Page 4 of the Errata: Gaining Squad Mode Abilities (page 219): The sentence “Depending on the squad leader’s Speciality and Chapter, he will have access to a different election of abilities which his Kill-team may then use during the course of the Mission” should change to “Depending on the squad leader’s Speciality, he will have access to a different selection of Codex abilities which his Kill-team may then use during the course of the mission.” From my reading (and help in clarification from other forumites), the specifically removed the portion referencing the Leader's Chapter, meaning that the rules apply as normal, irrespective of whether or not they are Squad Leader. So, if the Squad Leader is a DA Tac Marine, when in Squad Mode if he activates Sustained Suppression, only those that are of the Dark Angels chapter can benefit from the ability. The workaround for this is the Tac Marine's special ability where he can make a Command check to allow those not of his chapter to benefit from his Chapter Abilities. Other work arounds are in Rites of Battle as additinoal talents you can pick up that let your Kill Team use other chapter abilities.
  4. Nathiel said: I have gotten a conflicting rules answer about size modifiers saying it works for both ranged and melee. I may have been asking about BC but since the descriptions are copy/pasted it should be the same for both. I'll have to check that email account when I get home. As for squad/solo We have been allowing the single squad mode and single solo mode simultaneously and it hasn't caused any headaches. You do burn through the cohesion faster but that's the trade off. I simply go by the book, which only talks about to hit bonuses when speaking about ranged, but we've seen some conflicting clarification emails in recent history, makes me think they're a touch overworked For Squad/Solo, my players will milk any advantage out of any rule they can- even if you disregard the Black Templar or Blood Angel combos of GM destruction, simply combining things like a power fist, feat of strength, and furious charge can have ridiculous outcomes. I don't personally like my games quite that over the top so for me the two don't mix well. As for cohesion, I think the group I run for has run out once, maybe twice, so 'burning through cohesion faster' isn't much of a deterrent for them- they definitely game the system, but it was really simple for them to build out a Kill Team with a pool of 10-15 per session.
  5. Macharias the Mendicant said: Generally, a SM can only benefit from ONE squad mode ability at the time (even if more than one are active and sustained by the Kill Team). I would interpret that he can chose to use a Solo Mode ability INSTEAD of a benefiting from a Squad Mode ability. So, in your example, I would make the character choose between the two. Essentially, he'd be using a Solo ability AS a Squad ability (ie: spending cohesion), hence why I'd make him choose. I know that RoB allows a PC to spend cohesion on individual Solo abilities, but Cohesion is supposed to be about teamwork. As bogi_khaosa said, spending on SOlo abilties too often won't make the kill team happy. It should really be reserved for those desperate situations where no other options exist. RAW, to me, indicate that one could benefit from both solo mode and squad mode abilities- the rules only say that you can activate a solo mode ability at the cost of cohesion, but I can't find any reference that says you can benefit from one or the other, just that you can't benefit from more than one _squad_ mode ability at the same time. RAI, on the other hand, appears to me to be a clear case of only allowing the Marine to benefit from one 'special ability' at a time- thematically as well as balance-wise. In my games, I only allow players to benefit from one or the other, never both. If you want to use Feat of Strength while the rest of your squad uses Fire for Effect, go for it- it'll cost you cohesion and you can do one or the other, not both. That would also mean the subsequent turns, while Feat of Strength is still active, you can't benefit from any other Squad Mode abilities that have been called or are being sustained. As for activation cost and keeping things active- it depends on the ability. In the case of Siege Master, based on the entry description, I'd let the player spend the cohesion to activate it, and they could maintain it so long as they remain stationary. They could even alternate turns as to which ability they benefitted from (squad mode versus solo mode) if applicable, but in a given turn they could only reap the benefits of one ability. As soon as they move, it turns off and if they wished to activate it again, while in squad mode, they would need to spend the cohesion again.
  6. redbaron998 said: Hey everyone, I admit I am a bit over my head here. I am trying to get a Deathwatch started at my local store, noone has any GM Experince and pretty much no RPG experince so we are flying blind here. We are going to try an introduction game this Friday where we will get toghether some folks off the cuff and explain the rules. We are going to use the Extration mission from the Core rulebook and the sample characters for Final Sanction. My question is this? I feel like I am missing something here. I (as the GM) need to have the Character sheets there but what else should I have? I will have the map from the Core Rulebook there but am I suppose to have like Grid paper ready? How do I represent the battles to the group? I know these are elementary questions but I just want to make sure that I give a good game. Any help is appreciated. Thanks The core book gives some good suggestions in the intro portions of the book. Each player needs their character sheets, pencils/pens, dice, scratch paper, and of course you'll need the rulebooks. You can use a whiteboard to draw out where people are and what they're doing, or you can purchase a 'battle mat' at your local game store and some special markers for it and draw the action there. If you don't have anything like that you can always do the less fancy route and simply sketch it out on paper and let people see what you've drawn, and indicate on the sketch where they want to go. Some groups rely on description alone. Personally I only give players maps and handouts if they'd have access to them- I try to avoid giving them maps from books and adventures because those reveal areas of interest, secrets, enemy dispositions, and the like. If they'd have a map that is missing those elements, I'll make a copy from the book to hand to them. I have access to a whiteboard so I sketch out the area and the players give general descriptions of where they're going and what they're doing using the map. It's not precise, but for us it flows better than a super detailed grid with models. I am also a big fan of game shields- both for the reference, as well as for keeping my notes and my dice hidden from my players. How to represent the battles? The same way that you would represent everything elsein the game- be as descriptive when explaining what the characters face and the result of their actions. Experiment with it, get feedback from the group on what they liked and didn't and try to see if you can incorporate the group's feedback into your next session. Good luck and have fun.
  7. Thebigjul said: Just as I see it, I'm not really ok with the latest point made. People shooting each other inside the dome have no AP Bonus, it is a dome not a shield on everyone inside the aera. So basically the dome interfere with any shooting coming from outside but there's no reason that it works when combat are inside. I think this is the way the rules are written as well, but again, book not in front of me. However you slice it, this is the way I play as well, the force dome is like a wall that surrounds the group, not a continuous field.
  8. As with the last time the 'called shot' question came up, I still say it's a useful mode of firing. In the case of cover, obviously, and in the case of individuals. I can say from a GM's perspective that I've run a fair number of elites or masters that have different head armor values- Ork Warbosses or Chaos Marines that go (as some PC's do) helmetless. Outside of the core rules, I prefer No1's ork stats to those in the book, and the body versus arm and head stats on those are also quite different. I also force called shots if you want to hit an elite in the middle of a horde as well. That said, outside of certain elites and cover, I do have to agree with KommissarK in that most enemies detailed in the book have a fairly insignificant difference between AP levels across their bodies, in which case the penalties to hit (or the XP to avoid the penalty) would not be worth it. It's useful, but it's not the end all be all.
  9. Rennrh said: I understand what you are saying, but where does it state that this: "called shot and full auto are seperate actions in Deathwatch and cannot be combined." I can hear the question now, how can the aim action be combined with full auto but not called shot? I would like a rule or something official to back this up. I don't have the rules in front of me but if I recall correctly, the descriptor of Called Shot has it combined with a standard attack. Standard attacks are single shots. Full Auto attacks are where you fire full atuo. They are two different, non-combinable action types. Aim simply states it benefits your next attack, which allows it to be combined with either a called shot (and thus a standard attack) or a full auto burst (a full auto attack).
  10. Nathiel said: It's the base success part that throws that off. I'm assuming the errata stats here: Base success (0 degrees) HB: 1 hit SB: 2 hits 1 degree HB: 2 SB 2 2 degrees HB: 3 SB 4 3 degrees HB: 4 SB 4 4 degrees HB: 5 SB 6 5 degrees HB: 6(MAX) SB 6 6 degrees HB: 6 SB 8(MAX) This table is accurate- it takes 5 full degrees of success to get max hits with the HB and 6 with the SB because of the initial success to hit. Raw damage output would have the SB doing somehwere in the neighborhood of 10-12 more damage on a 'full hit.' But I'd say in response to that there are a lot of other factors that make up the weapons. 1. Damage Output: The HB's individual shots will, on average, do 3 more damage and 1more pen than the SB. As a GM I can say extra pen and slight extra damage per hit can be of substantial importance. 2. Range: The Heavy Bolter fires 50 meters further than the storm bolter using standard ammunition 3. Cost: Both Weapons are 20 req 4. Renown: HB is available to all marines, the Storm only to those of Respected or higher (which means you have to play a bit before you pick one up) 5. Clip Size: By default, the Heavy Bolter comes with a backpack of 250 rounds, otherwise known as 41 ridiculous rounds of continuous firing before needing to be reloaded versus the Storm Bolter's 60 round clip which will go in 7 rounds. Not important in all campaigns I know, but it's an item of note. 6. Enemy Dodges: An enemy dodges one hit per degree of success against a heavy bolter, but two hits per degree of success against a storm bolter All in all, I think they're two different weapons, used by different folks for different reasons. In some cases I still agree with DJ though about some of the weapons feeling 'better' but for me that often comes down to specialty ammo. The Boltgun was made an excellend all arounder, and sometimes other weapons feel so terribly specialized it can be annoying and feel like it's counter to the existing fiction.
  11. bogi_khaosa said: Charmander said: In the next adventure I run I think I'll have a booby trap filled with kittens that have the improved natural weapon trait. Be sure to give them Hammer Blow for added punch, representing the kittens striking together as one clenched, mewling fist. This imagry will keep me smiling all day, thank you.
  12. Baron Throatpunch said: So aaaaaaanyway, like I was saying, I totally didn't spend that Fate Point. And then the Chaos Titan (which turns out to have existed after all) blew me to scraps. It makes for a good story in a hey-isn't-that-unusual/dumb way, but was tremendously disempowering at the time. Yes, there are absolutely Chaos Titans. Though if your GM is throwing Chaos Titans at you and killing you outright without to hit or damage rolls, and it wasn't your character making a massive mistake, well, sorry your campaign wasn't more fun. It's been my experience so far that you can have a compelling story to tell your players in DW- the hardest part is for non-40k-junkies to get into the Space Marine 'personality' and not play them as either caricatures or stereotypes. But even a old action movie with cliche characters can have an interseting plot.
  13. I'm with DJ and Decessor here- each attack from the horde is a single attack. They are not dodgeable or parryable except under special circumstances. Force Fields protect against attacks. Those are the rules as written. Thematically a horde is described as making 101 attacks in order to explain the reason that you cannot dodge them (you dodge some but not enough) and the reason you have to worry about lasguns rather than just standing there laughing. Those aren't the rules though, that's the flavor text. The issue I have with 'adding realism' is the whole section of horde rules wasn't done for realism, but to speed the game up. Lasguns don't magically increase in penetrating capacity when 30 men shoot with them, but for purposes of the game it works- it speeds the game up, it keeps individual chumps from threatening the life of a Mighty Astartes, and it makes masses of troops an actual threat to life and limb. My only issue with the field rules is if you are running a game with fewer enemies (and thus fewer attacks on your PCs), sometimes the fields can get a bit over powered. As a GM you can suddenly be faced with an increase to the already unpredictable damage rates of your NPC forces, which makes it harder to cook up challenging but reasonable encounters for your players to beat. Some possible houserules, should you need them, could be: Fields, when sucessfully acitvated, only reduce damage incoming from a horde by 50% to represent it not absorbing all the hits. Alternate bits to that could be that you don't need to roll- they always work- that they can't overload while being used on a horde. Fields must be activated against each hit rather than each attack, so a burst from an assault cannon (or full auto salvo from a horde) can be more harmful to your shield than a precise blow from a lascannon. But if you're not having a balance headache, I would honestly leave the rules as is - it's more streamlined that way and will keep combat (which is slow to begin with) moving quickly.
  14. In the next adventure I run I think I'll have a booby trap filled with kittens that have the improved natural weapon trait. To the OP, which we've diverged quite a bit on and I actually intended to answer: it's my experience that Assault Marines clean house in hand to hand. Starting off day one perhaps the Librarian or Tech Marine can be equally skilled in melee, but after a few adventures and a level or two the AMs, who have unrestricted access to nearly every hand to hand skill the game has to offer, will quickly stomp all over the other two. The Librarian will always be excellent versus single opponents due to the force sword abilities, but no one will beat the Assault Marine after he gets some signature wargear, a couple of dual wielding talents, and swift/lighnting attack.
  15. afterimagedan said: Are the Librarians less overpowered that Wizards in D&D? Depends on the version of D&D. I am thinking of 4th ed which I found was quite balanced, power-wise. Yes, as consumers, we are pretty impatient. But that impatience is usually for expansion and supplement books and erratas AFTER the game is released. My point is, before we knew Deathwatch was a game being made, customer patient is much less of a problem. And I agree, but as soon as we heard Deathwatch was being made people complained for days that the status of it was 'on a boat' which you can still see by all the 'when does the boat turn into a truck' threads from a while back. Lining up your marketing with your development is never an easy task- you want to drum up excitement to have a successful launch. Once one publisher starts saying 'rules corrections are online' and people tolerate it, we get ourselves into a bit of a pickle as a consumer. And again, as for deathwatch, I didn't have the same experience as you did apparently; while there were definite gaps in the rules, most of them were easily skipped over or houseruled on the spot. Squad Mode was the exception in our group and took several hours to try and sort through, and lucky for us some forumites figured out the system before us. The rest of the issues we were able to deal with in a mostly democratic fashion on the spot without much disruption to gameplay. The big gap I found in DW when I thought of 'who playtested this?' had to do with the some of the balance issues found when stacking abilities together. To me though, I never had a huge problem with this, as I always viewed DW as being an 'epic level' game in a 'standard' system, and every game I've played in that scenario has had issues- worse issues than DW. Perhaps my bar was already lowered and it caused me to miss or not care about the issues some of the other's have gotten excited over.
  • Create New...