Jump to content

NGL

Members
  • Content Count

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About NGL

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Texas, United States
  1. Also, lets not forget they are classified as exotic not power weapons. They are both balanced and defensive because that's what they are, and they require additional training to use. Not to mention its attached to the arm freeing up the hands. Additionally, why wouldn't the two qualities stack. If you look at the mordian pattern power sword in the core rules it is balanced and provides an additional bonus to parry, without being defensive and suffering a penalty to attack, as well as presenting a superior damage profile. Should those bonuses not stack, since it makes it arguably better than the forearm powerblade? 15 to parry vs 25 with no penalty to attack or need for additional talents. If one can mount a range weapon to their forearm then as this weapon demonstrates one can certainly mount a power weapon. I used to want a forearm powerblade, but settled for a retractable powersword mounted to my arm like the predator. As to the second question, parrying something larger than you is likely to knock you back some I could see an opposed strength test if it really came down to it, or a penalty to parry such that it eventually wouldn't be possible. In that case, your character would have to dodge if that was even possible.
  2. Void suits are generally lightly armoured if at all which means any penetrating shot will rupture the suit. There are however some self sealing suits available some offer a 6+ on a d10 to self seal some of these auto-seal at good and best quality preventing any breeches or ruptures from occurring. I recommend the automatically self-sealing suits if your guys are going to be mixing it up in the void. Hostile Acquisitions pg.62 has rules for the pressure carapace ap6 all automatically self-sealing at good quality or better. Incidentally, it has the same rarity as a suit of storm trooper carapace, very rare. Prior to RT:HA my group devised a similar solution out of necessity. There are other examples of voidsuits out there but if you're looking for the cure all look no further.
  3. In our campaign we let a character swap any one advancement scheme for another to allow for snowflake characters. We think it's worked out well. You might want to give it a try. I came up with the idea while looking at my void-mistress' advances, and wanting to make a quick-witted, tech-savy, shipwright. So she swapped willpower advances for Intelligence advances. Gaining access to tech-use and shipwright early on means she can build, maintain, and fly all those slick little fighters.
  4. I am sorry, but isn't this basically turning into the same thing as your other thread. Different name same dispute over talents you don't like. If you're the gm of your game just toss out autosanguine and hardy. These two talents are only confusing when you set out to make them confusing. They do exactly what they say, make it so that you are always lightly wounded for the purposes of healing. It's Occam's razor. They don't need a complex explanation of how they work. In your previous thread I pointed out exactly how healing works from the core book, and how these talents interact with first aid, in the book's own language, I didn't make it up and I didn't assume anything (other than the book actually setting forth a set of rules and that medical attention equated to medical treatment). These two talents don't need any additional explanation. It's like Artificer Armour, by definition it is 'always Master-Crafted'. Yet the book says 'Unless specifically stated, an object is considered of Common craftsmanship.' So, is the table entry for Artificer Armour for a non-existent Common-Crafted suit of Artificer Armour that costs 60 requisition? No, of course not because Artificer Armour is the same as Master-Crafted Artificer Armour. Besides that, signature wargear (hero) only allows for 70 requisition, and if Artificer Armour is always Master-Crafted well then one has to conclude that the stat line is for the 'typical' Master-Crafted Artificer Armour. While you might not find that confusing there are several people who either have or have had reason to debate the issue for +1AP. If however you want a definitive ruling for your game submit a question if you haven't already and await a reply. It will take some time to have your question answered, but continuing to debate your question will ultimately get you nowhere as you aren't open to a literal interpretation of the rules. Instead you want a convoluted ruling that favors your own thoughts, that these two talents are 'overpowered' and need to be quashed. If I come off as rude I don't mean to. It's just that this forum is full of people who claim to want insight on how something works, and then they totally discount said insight in favor of their own thoughts. A large majority of the 'disputes' arise from the fact that the responses don't come from FFG. If you want an official response don't post in the forum use the Rules Question Link at the bottom of the page. While you might have originally thought FFG would directly respond to your post it is unlikely and irregular for them to do so. Having said that… some writers for FFG do seem to frequent the forums here and post responses on what they might have intended when writing something.
  5. It really depends on what game you ask the question for I think and who gets it. I have had questions answered the same day. I have also had questions answered a month later. At which point I had sort of moved on. Of course the deathwatch forum was still arguing about it until I posted the response and they settled down. Good luck I am curious how it turns out. The RT game I play in one of their ships has skittish and temperamental warp engines for up to a 2d5 week reduction when they are lucky.
  6. With the markov drive, the temperamental warp engine history, and the skittish oddity warp travel time can be reduced up to 3d5 weeks. This creates an issue where the players in your case, day jumps not weeks, would be constantly showing up before they left. Considering the average open warp travel ratio of 1:12 (1 day in warp = 12 days out of warp) it would make more sense to be a 'real' time reduction instead of a 'warp' time reduction (unless you want your players traveling back through time constantly). Even then that doesn't really resolve the issue a week jump = 12 weeks 'real' time which means you could still arrive early. One could simply say that the markov drive and the temperamental warp engine reduce travel time by 1d5 week to a min. of 1 week (which is exactly what skittish says). This means the drive and the history fail to offer any benefit to a trip lasting a week or less. Combined they could still reduce a 16 week jump to a 1 week jump. At least that is what I would say. Given the one to twelve ratio that's a combined savings of 3-15 weeks or 36-180 weeks 'real' time. That's a 3.46 year savings on the high-end. Which means if one had all three the optimal jump length would be 9 weeks (9-2.5-2.5-2.5). Reduced to 1 week or 12 weeks 'real' time per jump. The example from the RT CORE says on average one can travel across a sector in 30-60 days which translates to a huge time savings. Also, there is a limit to how long a ship is going to stay in the warp. Frankly warp travel is dangerous and shorter jumps are generally safer and more common then longer ones. If you have a destination that is on average a year's warp travel away you're going to try to break that up not just enter the warp and exit a year later. So, yes I agree there needs to be a house rule on this one since an official one hasn't been made to my knowledge. You might also want to ask FFG for their ruling via the ask a question link. my thoughts…
  7. I would say a Rogue Trader doesn't just start out as a Rogue trader which is where the origin path comes into play. Dark Heresy has plenty of careers I could see a Rogue Trader starting out in. I would say have your character spend 4500xp in a Dark Heresy career then buy into the Rogue Trader Career with his next 500xp (his rt starting xp). At this point the Rogue Trader will be slightly more capable given their additional starting skills but from that point on having access to only RT career advances will likely slow them down compared to their counterparts (I wouldn't give them an origin since they have already lived/played it). Its sort of like ascension just a different path (not as power I would say either). It is however a way of making characters from both systems play nice, and is loosely how we handled it in our campaign. If you choose to build a Rogue Trader career for DH I would remove all universal weapons training, and offer them weapons training similar to the scum class (perfect starter career for a Rogue Trader Pirate type). My thoughts…
  8. As an arch-militant by rank 2 he will be reloading it as a free action if he can't already. The only issue I see with the bow is its more versatile than a bolt pistol with a fire selector. As a free action with rapid reload he can notch and fire any specific arrow type he is carrying to deal with any specific enemy. The power of choice is a powerful one. The only way to limit the power of the bow (without modding its stats down or those of the arrows) is to limit the number of arrows and type he can carry at any given time. Since he wants a Hawkeye style character he needs the quiver. One full quiver may carry 10-15 arrows. Limit him to one quiver and have him detail which arrows he is carrying at the onset of the adventure. Over the course of an extended mission finding additional arrows may prove difficult. My thoughts
  9. .113 said: Critically Damaged (p. 262): "A character is Criticaly Damaged whenever he has taken Damage in excess of his Wounds." So, yeah, actually once you take critical damage you are critically damaged. Also note that "Critical Damage does not heal on its own". Auto-Sanguine (p.113): … "these miniscule machines repair minor injuries and speed healing. When applying healing the character is always considered Lightly Damaged and heals at an increased rate, removing 2 points of Damage per day." Considering it states it repairs minor injuries it's quite clear this doesn't involve critical hits. Also note that there is a difference betwen healing and first aid (and even extended care). Auto-sanguine allows you to heal at 2 points a day, even when normally heavily damaged (which should be 1/week) so it is indeed a good skill. One might argue that it should also have added another modifier or simply doubled toughness bonus for a days rest as well, but it doesn't say anything about that. As for criticals, since you are not healing anything while critically damaged, this talent isn't helping. Also note that an Apothecary not using a narthecium would NOT treat a heavily damaged space marine as lightly damaged, since this trait only covers healing (which could be described as natural healing for easier understanding). Hardy (p. 119): …"When undergoing medical treatment or healing from injuries, the Character recovers Damage as if Lightly Damaged". Hardy on the other hand allows an apothecary to apply First aid as if the patient was Lightly Damaged. He would also heal 1/day despite being heavily damaged, but not while critically damaged as the "natural healing" is removed in those cases. However, interestingly enough, since Extended care should count as a medical treatment, I believe that you could probably heal such a patient with extended care, as if he was lightly injured despite having critical damaged. I'm pretty sure it's not intended like that, but rule wise it suggests this is the case. This would mean a patient with the Hardy talent would be healed as if lightly injured if treated for a full day, despite being critically injured. If, of course, the full days rest is ensured AND the Medicae roll is made successfully. .113 I appreciate what you are trying to do, but it sounds like you want to house rule more than clarify the RAW.Autosanguine says the character is considered lightly damaged, and Hardy says as if lightly damaged. Both talents accomplish the same feat though worded differently…ignoring the character's damage state and substituting lightly damaged in its place when applying healing or receiving medical treatment (this should be read as medical attention since 'treatment' isn't defined). One's natural 'healing' (removal of damage) can be sped up by rest, medical attention, and a few psychic powers. First aid qualifies as medical attention as do some psychic powers. Furthermore, medical attention can either speed up or provide a means for immediate recovery (first aid does this). How does it work? 'Critical' damage (read as damage and not effects) is damage, and is removed the same as any other damage to lightly damaged characters. The thresholds define how quickly damage is removed not the damage itself. As to the point of overlapping damage states, lightly damaged/heavily damaged/critically damaged. I would use the following: critically damaged > heavily damaged < lightly damaged What does it means? When damage exceeds wounds one is considered critically damaged even if they would otherwise fall under another state, unless explicitly stated otherwise (autosanguine and hardy). A character is heavily damaged when one is neither lightly damaged nor critically damaged. A character is lightly damaged if they have taken two times their toughness bonus or less in damage (Narthecium increases this threshold to three times). It is possible for one to never be heavily damaged (high TB/low wounds and/or Narthecium). One would move instead directly into the critically damaged state from being lightly damaged.
  10. Critical damage doesn't always mean 'critically damaged'. If you chose to play it that way that's fine, it's just not my interpretation. There are two talents that I know of, Hardy and Autosanguine, that say when healing the character is considered lightly damaged (they even go so far as to say always considered lightly damaged). If the talents above don't help when taking critical damage as you suggest their value is greatly diminished. Unless I missed a change somewhere these two talents allow characters to sidestep the 'critically damaged' threshold altogether. While still taking critical damage they can be patched up remarkably fast (which can, will, and does save their lives). Next to True Grit which reduces critical damage Hardy and Autosanguine are two of the most valuable talents for keeping combat characters up (assuming you have competent medics on hand). Marine bob just got his arm blown off (7crit) while he is down after passing his check and not dieing out right the medic patches him up and sends him back into the fight. Hardy and Autosanguine let you do this.
  11. The Aquila (as mentioned above) is illustrated in Dark Heresy: Blood of Martyrs on page 54 under Monastic Upbringing -> Sign of the Aquila. In the picture the gentleman feels compelled to make the sign when passing shrines and what not. Also, thanks for the Cog reference it was something I was curious about when I started playing and basically what I was told, but the picture is a nice example.
  12. I agree with musclewizard whatever feels right for the GM. I look at it like this if the character is in danger of dieing due to critical damage the armour is probably getting shredded by those hits. Even if they're not some cosmetic damage could certainly be in order bullet holes, scorch marks, etc. As for those flak greatcoat wearing gunslingers add a few holes that need patching if they dodged a hail of gunfire (always love seeing the character put their fingers through the hole of a near miss.) Oh and please read cosmetic damage as roleplay flavor. Cosmetic damage shouldn't affect stats, only people's reaction to you. So you got an archmilitant who's been wearing the same patch ridden carapace for the past 3 sessions because mechanically it still functions, and they haven't found a reason to replace it yet. Well, have your npcs comment on it… other than that you could always just say at some point the armour is just too far gone to be patched and parts will have to be replaced. This works well given location specific modular armour. Oh and patching is what you do when you don't have the need, equipment, materials, or quality craftsman available to properly repair an item. Patching that best craftsmanship carapace or powerarmour maybe prefferable to using lower quality replacement parts. My thoughts
  13. Short of becoming a necrophage and gaining the regenerate talent I doubt anything severed would come back. Though as far as the game is considered severed limbs or not he is still tainted i.e. he doesn't just get to lop 'em off and call it a day. He may once again physically pass as 'normal' but the genetic mutation remains… perhaps becoming an issue later. Of course this is my interpretation of the trait and what I typically think about when dealing with regeneration. That aside limbs don't typically grow back unless you're looking to house rule it. I could see a willpower test modified by corruption points rolled by the GM. Whenever corruption points are gained for the character you make a roll. Failure would result in the mutated limbs beginning to regenerate applying a penalty to the operation of the cybernetic ones (poor craftsmanship maybe if already poor double the penalty). Removal of the cybernetics would allow the limbs to fully regenerate in 1d5 days with their original benefit/penalties. Ignoring the situation would result in the mutated limbs over growing the cybernetics in 3d5 days imposing the mutation's benefit/penalties, and reducing the cybernetics to poor craftsmanship. (a combination of cybernetic and corrupted flesh may add some unique property… of course one wouldn't be able to tell what this is until it presented itself.) Amputation of the mutated limbs, repair of the cybernetics, and reinstallation 2d5 days. These options are just off the top of my head and really you could do all kinds of fun stuff none of which I feel as anything other than a minor inconvenience to a character that would risk a mutation in the first place. The GM's unwritten rules are what I think make the game more exciting as long as you aren't actively stacking the deck against your players. If you feel a character is taking risks for the sake of taking risks and then tries to sidestep the consequences its up to you to do your part. Later
  14. At the risk of having someone jump me I would say natural armour stacks with any other armour 'worn' on that location. The machine trait I agree shouldn't stack with natural armour since they are broadly speaking of the same category (armour that is part of your character i.e. doesn't typically get removed). That of course is simply one way of playing it. Some will say no armour stacks and simply award the highest armour bonus to the location. Both approaches demonstrate some merit. As for the contradiction, I think it is safe to assume the two cancel each other out, and it does in fact stack with armour 'worn' on that location; unless there is a future errata that states otherwise I wouldn't worry about it. As a GM your ass would be covered either way (conveniently enough) as a player its really up to the GM. Good luck, hope it helps but I have a feeling its just going to be a preference. No one really wants armour stacking to be an issue, but realistically if there was going to be an exception to the rule this is the situation.
  15. Wow, I can see there is no pleasing you mort. Pointing out the the wording hasn't changed, the manner in which the action is used hasn't changed, and providing an explanation of how the action works has had absolutely no effect on you. Choose to ignore the rules all you want and exploit your 'interpretation' of them. FFG cannot give examples for every rule and action in the game, and the fact that there are now more valid half action attacks is irrelevant. Delay is a half action to use, it then reserves your other half action to use at another point in the round. So you are correct using it after any other half action is idiocy and garners no benefit to the player as it becomes a wasted action. As you said it could have been made a full action, but then you wouldn't have a half action to hold in reserve would you? If it was a full action then it would need to be reworded. As it stands there is nothing wrong with it. What you are attempting to do is turn delay into a free action which it explicitly is not (that's why it says half-action). A literal interpretation of the rule is all that is required. If that is beyond you then your reading comprehension is the only problem I see. You are literally trying to make an issue out of nothing based on your own bias, and refusing to accept clarification from anyone but a developer it would seem (though i reckon you would dispute their claims as well). So since you are unwilling or unable to accept the literal meaning of the word reserved I suggest you submit a support question next time rather than posting a rules question in the forum and ignoring those that seek to help you. Additionally, your comment that the rules around the action have changed is also irrelevant for there is but one rule that effects Delay and it hasn't changed (hint its DELAY).
×
×
  • Create New...