Jump to content

DarianBlood

Members
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DarianBlood

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Newington, Kent, United Kingdom
  1. Dark Reign has 3 unofficial supplements for download Ships of the Imperial Navy Ships of the Chaos Legions Ships of the Adeptus Astartes They have stats for battleships, its not official but they are pretty handy.
  2. I'd say the concept is a little too 'nice' for 40k. However Doctor Who played with a very similar concept with the Tivoli. http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Gibbis I'd say that particular brand of sly submissiveness could work out quite well for a Xenos race in 40k
  3. Fgdsfg said: Dabat said: Fgdsfg said: Dabat said: In the BFG fluff Necron ships were likened to tombs, and like tombs they were largely empty. Their ships are advanced enough that they effectively run themselves. And while Necrons, even single specimens, are incredibly dangerous there simply are not enough of them active to effectively guard the ship against intrusion. While there will be enough Necrons to do this, some day, --Some horrible, horrible black day yet to come-- at the current place of the time line their ships are particularly vulnerable to boarding actions. That's.. that's somehow even scarier. Isn't it? So much in sci-fi tries to humanize the bad guys for... Whatever reason. But something I always liked about 40K is that they don't try. The Tyranids and the Necrons can't be talked to, they can't be reasoned with. And above all, as bad as things are now, they are only going to get worse. Until Matt Ward. The whole humanization change and necron retcon is something I will forever ignore and pretend never happened. Necrons are silent, malevolent, uncaring slaves to entities that defy understanding, ancient beyond count, with technologies the rest of the galaxy can only dream of. In nightmares. End of discussion. Agreed, the moment i heard about this abomination i got hold of an old 'Codex Necrons' to work from. This recton is just plain made of horrible. I might make a tiny exception for the idea of a free willed Necron Lord as thats almost canon from their description, not that they would likely have much to say to any PC they encounter though... On the subject of the ships they look great and i'm going to have some fun with them but isnt 2.3km for their largest vessel a bit on the small side?
  4. Rift said: Maese Mateo said: Zarkov N said: How long is a Navigator's work day when the ship is in the warp? Full time. They are connected to a life support system to keep them alive and working continously without breaks nor interruptions (the Inmaterium is too dangerous and unpredictable to be even a couple minutes without a navigator to guide the ship). If the journey is too long, another Navigator takes his place to allow the other one to rest. You can still make short warpjumps without a navigator, so I'd take this story with a half a metric ton of salt. How i tend to play it is to assume there are calm patches in the warp where the ship can figuratively 'weigh anchor' either in the warp or in the void so the navigator can rest and take sightings to ensure the ship in on course. Further i assume this is factored into the time spent in the warp. Ofc this assumes normal warp travel (if it can ever be considered normal). For instance my groups Navigator is currently spending 72 hours on full life support racing the edge of a warp storm, in situations like that taking a break isnt really possible.
  5. This guy created Paper Minatures, they require a little work to print up and put together but I like them. http://corpsegod.blogspot.com/ It saved my group from using Minstrels as tokens, though it was nice being able to eat the casualties...
  6. Oh my, this looks awesome, if only my french wasn't slightly worse than my Eldar Seriously, props on this its a very nice piece of software *considers taking french classes*
  7. I have to say this kind of civilization has always been in the back of my mind since i started playing RT. It seems to me to be a subject deliberatly avoided by GW simply because it doesn't fit into the Grimdark setting but by the law of averages at least one high tech civilization should have survived out there. The one thing you didn't mention is AI. Now this was long after the dark age and the Men of Iron but such an enlightened society might well have overcome its hatred of AI systems and done some research into the subject. Imagine if the citizens of Charon had built themselves a Jupiter Brain computer around the gas giant as the apex of their AI technology, further assume that this wasnt some batshit crazy AI but an intelligent creative being that provides much of the impetus of the societys advancement. On the one hand a society with either access to or managed by a Jupiter Brain level AI is going to be a formidable opponent (hordes of AI controlled attack ships and orbital/system defenses, intelligent minefields etc on the one hand, godlike tactical expertise on the other) while at the same time painting an even bigger target on it as far as the Imperial Authorities go. Either way, good luck with the campaign.
  8. How I would handle this is to make it the final climax of the campaign. Once you know the end is in sight start plotting, let the players know about this and let run them through the adventure to recover it. Then while they are working out how to pay for the repairs to it start foreshadowing some terrible event to come, initially dont clue them in to whats going on, just rumors and whispers. At some point drop the bombshell that something big and bad is coming to the expanse soon then it becomes a race against time to have the ship up and running for the final confrontation as they realise only the Deliverance can possibly stand against it. If they fail too many of the missions to fix the ship then its game over by default, if they manage to get it finished ahead of time allow them to rally some more Rogue Traders to their banner from the sheer magnificence of the ship they can now field, then go all out on them with a battle against some force approaching the power of a greater demon prince with a damned fleet at his back. If they fail campaign over if they win its also campaign over but they will have written themselves indelibly into the pages of history. Simply put I would say this ship is too powerful for general play but integrated like this the players still get their moment of glory and its put to good use as a campaign finisher
  9. Mystrunner said: As an update, my players have decided to see if they can assassinate the leader of said "Rome" and take over his armies... so, this pleases me. Thanks for all the suggestions, guys! If the players get themselves in charge of the city and the armies and the mutants decide to surge....I suggest you review the 'Gears of War' game series for inspiration about what comes next
  10. Imo it all balances out for the players, same as torpedoes. First time i saw they moved 10 in the round they were fired i nearly banned them on the spot, it was like having an extra and more powerful set of lances available. The point is for fighters and Torpedoes both is...Upkeep. Unless your players have an insane profit factor they are going to be stretching themselves keeping a decent stock of fighters/bombers/torps. Sure they can slag most any ship by throwing enough bombers w/fighter escorts at it but those losses are going to need to be replaced in time and one ship with a few squadrons of fighters for defense will tear apart bombers like tissue paper, thats a lot of profit going up in flames... I think expendable ordanance is more unbalanced in the hands of NPC antagonists seeing as when you throw them at the explorers ship they wont be quite so constrained.
  11. If you do want to buy online, i suggest Amazon Marketplace, they are smaller sellers who tend to have the book before Amazon itself, sometimes they are cheaper too
  12. Lightbringer said: DarianBlood said: Wow, just got through reading a tiny fraction of the hate-pages about Matt Ward...i dont think i would have stepped into this discussion had i known the ire that follows him... Yes, he seems to have become bit of a hate figure, which no-one deserves. It's just a game, after all! I actually thought his Blood Angels Codex was pretty good, though I'm not a big fan of the Grey Knight Codex. A lot of his new Grey Knight background additions were just...well...not very good, in my opinion. Particularly the stuff about killing Sororitas for their blood. I'm usually supportive of a big new GW writer who's not afraid to sweep in and make changes to the setting. After all, Andy Chambers did that with the old Codex Necrons. That book was met with howls of protest at the time: "Ugh, the Necrons are behind everything, it's stupid!" But I personally thought that book was a triumph, one of the best 40k books ever. I admit, I haven't read the new Necron Codex yet, but I've obviously read the new White Dwarf and a few internet articles floating around about the Matt Ward Necron re-imagining. My view is that the whole Necron background did need to be re-ordered somewhat, and that it is completely logical to now place a higher emphasis on individual Necron Lords with strong personalities. The major flaw with the old Codex (which, as I say, I still love) was that it only really created 4 major characters with any actual personality (the C'Tan), and only provided proper details of two of them. Given that the whole charm of the 40k setting is the ability to create your own armies led by colourful villains and heroes of your own invention, this was arguably a major misstep. "Old" Necron Lords were total ciphers. Yes, the old Codex said they had greater personality than the basic Necron warrior, but the overall inference of the Codex was that they were all petty much mindless slaves of the four C'Tan. Later writers (sensibly) retreated from this position, with more interesting Necron Lords popping up in Xenology and the most recent edition of 40k. So the new Necron Dynasties system is in my view something to be welcomed. More indvidualistic Necron Lords with their own personalities and motivations bring something new and vital to the setting, and will also make player armies infinitely more interesting on the tabletop. I also love the new miniatures. They are genuinely beautiful pieces, staying true to the original design but riffing on it extensively. The vehicles are good, the Elite Infantry outstanding, and the HQ models are top notch. I haven't played the TT game for years, but the new Necron miniatures have lured me back more than anything GW's done in a long time. However, there are a lot of things about the new Codex that I have some reservations about. Firstly, I don't like the suggestion that the C'Tan menace has been de-emphasised. All this stuff about C'Tan "shards" seems to suggest that the C'Tan have been successfully overthrown by the Necrons and imprisoned by them in constructs which can be used by any Necron army. I don't like this idea. The C'Tan were always, in my view, a brilliant creation, utterly malignant and alien creatures, the "Great Old Ones" (in a Lovecraft sense) of the 40k setting. To make them effectively genies in bottles or Daemons which can be summoned seems to be a real downgrading of a key group of 40k villains. Like demoting Darth Vader to a Stormtrooper. It also potentially downgrades the importance of the "War in Heaven," defeating the dramatic majesty of some of the neatest and most intelligent deep 40k background in the whole setting. (OK, that's a bit overblown perhaps, but you get my drift.) Secondly, I have to admit that the writing of the interaction between Necron Lords in the most recent battle report in White Dwarf made me wince. These are supposed to be 65 million+ year old unknowably malign alien mechanical entities, and they're cackling away to each other like the villains on a saturday morning cartoon. It's like watching Skeletor talking to Beastman, it's genuinely painful to read. If Necron Lords are going to be portrayed in a one dimensional fashion like that, then it seems to be a real step back from the quality of the writing in Andy Chambers' brilliant first Codex. Thirdly, the characterisation of the Necrons as "Tomb Kings in Space" has always been apt to a degree, but I do worry that the new Codex may push the metaphor too far. The Necrons are NOT Imhotep from the Mummy Returns, they are the remnants of a totally alien civilisation devoted to the destruction of all living things. GW background works best when it takes a key archetypal concept (the Mongol horde, the Catholic Church, the Praetorian Guard etc) and pushes it in a weird direction without slavishly following all aspects of the archetype. The new Codex seems to be worryingly similar to the Tomb Kings book, written with an eye to reproducing that concept without riffing on some of the other neat sci fi archetypes that the original book did. The original Codex gave sly winks to the Daleks, the Cybermen, the Terminator (original and T1000) and Von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods." The new Codex gives worrying signs of drawing its principle creative inspiration from another GW army book. Perhaps I'm an old 40k fart. Perhaps I'm not as open to new material as I used to be... and as I say, I haven't actually read the book I'm critiquing above, so perhaps I'm no better than the idiots who protested "The Life of Brian" without actually seeing it. If I've got so much to say before I've read the thing, I'm entirely open to legitimate criticism that I'm not approaching the new book with an open mind. I genuinely hope Matt Ward knocks this one out the park, because I love the Necrons to bits. They have the room, given their enormous history, to go in virtually any direction, and there is, with the new Dynasties system, tremendous room for layers of nuance and intrigue. But I do have concerns based on what I've seen so far.... You make some valid and interesting points. Having had some time to think about it (and to thoroughly read through an old 'Codex Necrons' i got hold of) i think i may end up combining some elements of the new along with the background of the old. In Rogue Trader campaigns we have the advantage that the setting is before official contact with the Necrons so no character in the campaign should have any preconceptions about them. I sort of like the idea of the odd Necron lord who was able to keep enough of his personality to retain free will...at the very least that would make him a memorable opponent, depending on his motivations he might even potentially become more than that, while at the same time the bulk of Necrons would be the same merciless killers as written in the fluff.
  13. Wow, just got through reading a tiny fraction of the hate-pages about Matt Ward...i dont think i would have stepped into this discussion had i known the ire that follows him...
  14. Just for the record, I had no idea who Matt Ward was until i just googled him, I have never been a tabletop player and my interest in 40k came from reading Eisenhorn and Gaunts Ghosts (call me a Dan Abnett fanboy if you want, i wont deny it). I honestly dont care who made the changes and i'm not whining about them, just pointing out i think they are a bad idea and will dilute the terror power of Necrons. Beyond that i guess i must admit my comment was hardly helpful to the OP.
  15. Ugh, just who made this awful decision? This change to the Necrons is going to rob them of the terror they inspire. Well in my campaign the Necrons are going to be oldschool all the way
×
×
  • Create New...