Jump to content

moepp

Members
  • Content Count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About moepp

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Vienna, Austria
  1. Checking out this item, I asked myself: Why do they only work in poorly lit areas? If I undestood that right, they´re thermal sights. Should their efficiency not be dependent on the temperature in the surrounding area?
  2. What I kinda don´t like though are the +10 and +20 bonuses for half and full cover. Cover is already greatly beneficial without these.
  3. Yes Reverend Mort and Drake56, you guys are right. Just recieved and answer from FFG confirming your stance on this one. Craftsmanship quality does affect parry rolls.
  4. Imo you can´t get a third "All Out Attack" by comining "Furious Assault" with "Step Aside". Step Aside clearly states: In effect this, gives the character a second Reaction, that may only be used for Dodge and Parry attempts. @ Thunder Charge: No, characters are not considered to be in melee with targets they barrel through using thunder charge.. However if the character using thunder charge is in melee already, and wants to charge somebody else, enemies in melee with him would get free attacks on him for not leaving melee via disengage action. I´d say they´d not get free attacks if our charger manages to knock em down though (Leaving Melee, doesn´t say when exactly the attack is delivered), but that´s my personal take on it.
  5. Zarkov N said: The cry of "It's what my character would do" to excuse player versus player actions is weak sauce. It can be used as weak excuse, and mostly is when a PC attacks another without provocation. It either means that the player has created a character that is not compatible with a group, or that it´s simply immature behaviour. Generally spoken though, this sentence determines the difference between playing the game and roleplaying the game. This can lead to violence and even death within the group. Though if it happens unprovoked there´s something wrong with either the character or the player. And having a violent and aggressive character is by no means a justification to routinely bully the groupmembers around. Either a player can play such a character without constantly sowing discontent among the group or he can´t. Said provocation can be avoided with evaluating the situation and its likely outcomes OOC.
  6. 1) No. You may make an additional attack as part of your attack action. This is stated at the end of the descriptions of all applicable attack actions that may be used while attacking with both weapons. Example: Lightning Attack: ...............If the attacker is wielding a second weapon in his off hand, he may make an additional attack, as part of this action. See Two Weapon Fighting on page 242. This is found at the end of the description of the Lighting Attack Action and at the end of every other attack you can use this way. 2) I´m clueless on this one myself, sorry. Since Charge states clearly which attacks you can use at the end of the move and All Out Attack only says a single attack, I guess that´s what it is one Strike at (+30) to hit. Wouldn´t surprise me, I know "All Out Attack" as pretty much of a let down in other systems aswell. But I´m not sure at all. 3) The penalty includes all WS and BS tests made this turn. So no.
  7. Maybe we where talking of two different things. I was strictly talking about the individual legions. Not the CSM in their enirety. And I am well aware that the CSM´s ability to perform grand scale operations is limited and that the legions are legions in name only and do not have the numbers they had during the great crusade. And yes the orks are successful (though I do think they do lots of stupid things while they´re at it), but without their nigh endless numbers they wouldn´t be. CSM would be all but extinct if they´d be like orks.
  8. So basically no better than orks. I find that hard to believe, csm lack the numbers to get away with that. Things have changed since the great crusade, and it´s definetly not the same soldierly discipline. But your description sounds like they where disorganised gangs of thughs who occasionally band together for a greater cause. By that logic they wouldn´t be much of a threat to the imperium and definetly not the most capable forces the ruinous powers can muster. Figures like abaddon or erebus have been leaders since the great cusade, and definetly not just by being big and mean. Your description looks like a good match for the world eaters, who truely ceased to exist as a legion or any sort of organised force. BTW: about the word bearers for instance the index astartes says: the word bearers have remained a unified, if loosely organized, legion. Many legions are severly fractured and don´t exist as such anymore. The my knowledge, that is the case with the four single-god-aligned legions (world eaters, emperors children, thousand sons and death guard) aswell as the night lords legion. Other than organisation, I don´t believe this is the case with the remaining legions. They might be plagued by internal rivalries, inter legion politics that occasionally culminate in bloodshed a backstabbing every once in a while and things like that. But all in all they still cling together as always. No one needs to share it, but that´s my perspective on things. And I do view the alpha legion as being especially loyal to eachother and their cause, as I percieve it as impossible to keep up their level secrecy, professionalism and coordination without being so.
  9. N0-1_H3r3 said: Two things: Firstly, it's a mistake to consider Chaos Space Marines as being extensions of their Legions as Loyalists are of their Chapters - the Legions all but ceased to exist as coherent military organisations millennia ago, with what remains more akin to scattered warbands loosely bound by half-remembered traditions and the few unbroken bonds of ancient loyalty. It´s equally a mistake to think that all legions of old are but fractured squabbling splinter groups without any sense of unity and coordination. Especially those that have known higher echelons of command or are famed for their highly efficient and resilient chain of command. Namely, the word bearers, the black legion and the alpha legion. Dunno the status quo of the iron warriors. The word bearers are kept in unity by the council of sicarius. There are rivalries and even infighting is not unknown, but the council keeps things from getting out of hand, and it keeps the legion focused. The black legion is splintered into warbands of all sizes, but when abaddon or one of his lieutenants calls upon them, everyone heeds the call, everyone knows his place (more or less) and the legion works like a well oiled machinery. The current command structure of the alpha legion is unknown, however, a highly efficient one, that can compensate losses with ease has ever been attributed to them. Furthermore their operations have extensive planning phases of decades, centuries or even millenia. The amount of coordination and logistics involved does not speak the language of marauding warbands interested in wanton violence and plunder. And I pretty much doubt that GW deliberately writes bull in their index astartes entry.
  10. They are not loyal to the emperor. Though I think they can be seen as sort of anti-imperial freedom fighters. That doesn´t mean that they are "nice" though. "For the Emperor!" and similar battlecries are used to confuse imperial forces, and it is not uncommon for Alpha Legion forces to repaint their armour to match a loyal astartes chapter. If they are identified as what they are, they sometimes use em anyways to mock and taunt the enemy, though probably mostly against loyalist space marines, in an attempt to take advantage of their pride (or hubris) and provoke an impulsive reaction.
  11. Fgdsfg said: I have to chime in here and note that I think that it is stupid to lump regular humans together with space marines in any way, fashion, or form, when presented with any single premise or scenario. They are not on the same "level", they do not work the same way, they are substantially different, and expecting the two to mesh well together in a group game is a silly idea. I kinda disagree. I don´t see much of a difference between CSM and human vs heavily armoured and armed warrior and other classes in some fantasy RPG. The only sort of "unique" difficulty is blending into imperial society. As long as that isn´t a constant requirement I don´t see much of a problem. Our group consists of a heretek, a psyker, a renegade, a chosen and a forsaken. We´re only one session into the game but so far it went very well. Everyone had his/her moments to shine. The CSM obviously in combat, as did the renegade (excellent sniper support from his long las). The heretek had lots of technical obstacles to overcome (we where on a ship, no not broken chains though inspired by it), and even saved my characters live as he was overriding a sequence that would open the hangar bay doors (to the void), whilst battling some internal security routines hellbent on locking him out of the system. Thanks to his efforts, my char could escape the threatened area in time. Plus a ship is a nice place to be for a tech geek^^. The psyker could do a lot of mischief (useful aswell as fun), and had his own "psy-scientific" discoveries to make. Everyone was pretty satisfied by the experience so far. And next to combat, players are trying to branch out into other fields of interest. I think, you need to tailor the plot to the group, not the other way around I guess. In BC mayhaps more so than in other RPG´s but it´s too early for me to judge.
  12. Reverend mort said: I have to say I'm iffy on this interpretation. After all, it clearly states ALL weapon skill tests. That change of phrasing alone seems to indicate the intent. A parry skill is a test using the weapon skill. Furthermore, it's a skill test based on using the weapon. The weapon of superior quality should make said test easier. It seems logical to me. And since bonuses stack, both the balanced weapon trait AND the duelist hilt upgrades still help. They make you even better at parrying. Also, by your interpretation that it must be listed as a weapon skill test it starts becoming even more weird. So it applies to the Feint move, the Manoeuvre action and Stun attacks, but not parry? Eh? Where's the logic there? The quality of the weapon is so great that it aids in not only deceiving your opponent, controlling him on the battlefield AND non-lethally smashing him across the head, yet it offers no advantage in putting your weapon in the way of his? Nitpicking on language like that seems very unfun to me. Besides, having to keep track of what constitutes a "weapon skill test" and "weapon skill based test" in play is a lot of hassle. To me the simpler, easier and balanced solution is to simply say that a best quality weapon gives you +10 to any weapon skill test that uses said weapon, be that an attack, a parry, a counter-attack or a feint. To be honest. I didn´t look for any sense in it. And as said earlier, I´m not entirely sure of it myself. I just read what Nimas said, looked into the rulebook and saw that apperently (imo) skill tests are completely its own thing. The rules clearly differentiate between Characteristic test and Skill test. That was enough for me, I mean why seperate the two (on page 36) with equally large headlines when a Skill test is basically just a type or facette of a Characteristc test?
  13. hmm, I´ll think about what you guys said. Seeing other opinions is definetly helpful to get a wider perspective on things. I wasn´t trying to bicker around or anything so, sorry when it came across that way (I hope not^^). BC definetly comes as a bit of a culture shock. Coming from WFRP 2nd edition, where starting characters tend to be quite incompetent most of the time. Well, anyhow thanks for the feedback PS: I´m not the GM, I´m a player btw.
  14. Never read any novels about them, just the Index Astartes entry and what tid bits of information presented in the CSM codices (starting with 3rd edition). From there it appeared to be as follows: The Alpha Legion are followers of the ruinous powers, though they are not going overboard with their faith. They more than most other Legions still a military organisation, with ranks and officers rather than a religious brotherhood. They are the only legion that cultivates heretical cults on imperial worlds in any sort of big style. Sometimes a religious cult, sometimes a more worldly underground resistance against imperial oppression, as it suits them. Though they follow the ruinous powers they fight their own war against the imperium and don´t get involved much with other Legions or chaos forces sprouting forth from the eye of terror. Their organisation is fractured to suit the needs of a guerilla warfare. Much of the Legion is operating in small cells, though they still fight for a common goal, the fracturing of the Alpha Legion pretty much ends with their terror cell like oraganisation. In all other aspects, they´re probably more unified than any other Legion, the bonds of soldierly comradery is strong in the Alpha Legion. They also have larger forces capable of planetary invasions, though probably not strong enough to seize a tightly defended planet without the element of surprise and softening the defenders up with insurgencies. I´d say that the others don´t trust an Alpha Legionnaire farther than they can throw him, but acknowledge that they undoubtedly pull their weight in the fight against the imperium. Some might even admire them for not seeking sanctuary in warp and hanging in there, in imperial domain eversince. Some of the older veterans of the horus heresy might hold a grudge against them for not being at their side in those days. Anyhow, that´s just my PoV on them.
  15. Nimas said: I was curious about that one as well, but from my reading of it, parry is an Evasion test as opposed to a WS test. It does use WS (which is the confusinng part) but in the Parry/Dodge section it simply refers to them under evasion. Of course you could mount an argument either way, but I get the feeling that it's supposed to not give you a bonus on parry. Otherwise the dueling hilt upgrade seems superfluous the majority of the time. Again, I could be wrong about this I am not entirely sure, but I think you´re on the right track here. A Weapon Skill Test is RAW a Characteristic Test. While a Parry roll is a Skill Test using the Weapon Skill Characteristic. Not the same thing imo.
×
×
  • Create New...