Jump to content

limaxophobiac

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About limaxophobiac

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Stockholm, Sweden
  1. How on earth do flamers need a buff? They're already absurd and don't even require you do invest in BS to be so. The fact that they set you on fire no matter what armour you are wearing or how though you are combined with the difficulty of putting yourself out and the fact that the ongoing fatigue from being on fire ignores both thoughness & armour means a single shot from a hand flamer (or an incendiary round from the crappiest little stub-pistol ) can take down a hive tyrant or an astartes in terminator armour unless they succeed their agility check to drop-and-roll. Flamers RAW are basically the complete opposite of what you'd expect them to be. They're amazing to the point of absurdity against super-though and heavy armoured but slow opponents and a bit crummy vs. fast and lightly armoured ones unless they're out of reactions for dodge. Personally I'd remove the fatigue loss from being on fire completely on turns it doesn't do enough damage to overcome your TB, put a limit on the duration for being on fire (RAW, stationary objects or creatures with agility<20 hit by a flame weapon are on fire FOREVER unless someone puts them out), and let those on fire apply the armour bonus against the ongoing damage if the attack that set them on fire didn't cause at least 1 wound.
  2. Mythbusters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfoJAwlUopI Basically ammo going of due to heat outside of a barrel doesn't hit hard enough to do any serious damage. Which makes sense given that a bullet doesn't really pack more powder than a big firecracker.
  3. I really don't think ammunition going of due to enemy fire makes sense from anything less than a somwhat continous burn from a flame weapon, and even then bullets going of like that have awfull ballistic performance and should be stopped dead by any half-decent armour. Neither will a pistol or rifle ever realistically explode and hurt the guy holding it from any attack that wouldn't have taken of his hand anyway. Tanks used by flamers and meltas are obviously a different matter and should indeed make a big boom*, but gunpowder firearms and ammo more advanced than blunderbusses don't really explode in battle due to enemy fire, at least not in anything but one-in-a-million freak accidents. *Well, realistically it should probably require incendiary ammo to cause a fuel-canister for a flamethrower to explode but 40k is pretty cinematic.
  4. Holy crap those ships are scary. But I guess it's good to have something to give the little cortex-implant stacking-the-deck navigators and BS 80+ Void Tactician munchkins a run for their money.
  5. Would also mean that, RAW, a single attack with any flame weapon against any stationary object or character with a TB<10 no matter it's AP will always eventually destroy it as the object/character can't make Agility checks (being stationary and all) and so will burn forever untill destroyed unless someone puts it out? lol
  6. As I feared. I don't really think the loss of fatigue is supposed to be from pain but is more of a purely physical effect of your body being heated up, could be wrong though. It's still IMO pretty silly that RAW an Astardes in Terminator Armour or a Hive Tyrant can be set on fire with a hand flamer and forced to drop and roll to put it out, so I think we'll go with it actually having to penetrate and cause at least 1 Wound to set someone on fire.
  7. Do people hit by flamers have to roll Agility to resist being set on fire even if the damage isn't enough to actually penetrate their AP & TB, and do they continue to lose fatigue even if their TB is high enough to ignore the 1d10/round damage from being on fire? The text doesn't make a clear differentiation between the strength of the attack (the damage rolled) and actuall injury (what the target suffers), and just calls both things damage. I'm leaning toward it only setting them on fire if it penetrates AP & TB and actually does injury, as otherwise flamers are basically intant-win against low-agility enemies no matter how though they are as they'll end up drained of Fatigue and passing out in a few turns. Also, it makes no sense that the initiall hit wouldn't do anything at all and fail to get through your armour, but still set you on fire. F.ex. the Greater Deamon (Walking Nightmare) from Edge of the Abyss has 0 chance of putting itself out (as it only has 18 Agility and it's a Hard[-20] test), so unless it can resist the attack by thoughing it out you can just shoot it once with a flamer, run away, and then it'll fall down unconscious from Fatigue 10 rounds later, and if it wakes up, it's still on fire, so it goes down again in 1 round.
  8. I'm pretty sure helmets aren't supposed to cause Navigators any trouble with their eye powers. 1) It's quite clear that having Armour Points for the Head location does not mean that the whole head has to fully covered by the armour. Look at the illustrations of the Oathsworn Bodyguard, Eldar Corsair, and Ork Freebooter in the book; they all have armour points for the head location while clearly not covering the location where the navigator has his eye with the armour. 2) Given how lethal it is to get shot in a location without armour, this is a huge nerf on navigators and if true would have been mentioned in the book.
  9. If the navigator has putt his points into boosting Lidless Stare he obviously wants to use it, so why not have them charge the group in melee so he can kill half a dozen of them and look awesome?
  10. auer said: We have a rule: What the players can use, it can use the GM too, but not vice versa. That seems like a pretty awfull rule.
  11. Smoke grenades seem a fine idea if they've been sent by someone who knows of a navigators capabilities, though that will obviously cause trouble for them as well when they're trying to shoot the PCs. I'd be hessitant to give them more for resistance than 30-35 Willpower and maybe Resistance: Psychic Techniques, given that that makes them about as good at resisting psychic powers as the average space marine. Willpower higher than that and Strong Minded would really only make sense if they're some sort of super-elite specially trained psyker killing squad.
  12. Fgdsfg said: To me, the path system is just a way to avoid potentially ridiculous or hard-to-explain combinations. But the thing is it doesn't do that at all. Unless the writers think a Death Worlder Rogue Trader is weirder Trainted (Mutant: Vile Deformity) Missionary.
  13. After getting frustrated trying to make a void born Navigator I think all rows as free rows makes for a lot more sensible characters than the forced combinations you get without it, Like now when I discover all void born navigators have to either be pick-pocketing thieves (Scapegrace) or violent mercenaries (Stubjack). Because that makes perfect sense....
  14. I'm a bit confused by Table 1-6 in Battlefleet Koronus. With craftsmanship adding to component SP cost and thus giving you a larger penalty to the aquisition by reducing it's availability, does this mean it doesn't give the usual penalty for improved craftsmanship or does it penalize the Aquisition twice? Example: Best Craftsmanship Sunsea Laser Battery is a 3 sp component, does this give it a a) -50 Aquisition modifier (-20 for Very Rare from being 3 SP and -30 for being a weapon component) or b) -80 Aquisition modifier (-20 for Very Rare from being 3 SP and -30 for being a weapon component and -30 for being Best Craftsmanship) Both are IMO problematic as a) results in there being no difference between Best Craftsmanship or Common Craftsmanship when aquisitioning a 1 or 2 SP Archeotech component, while b) makes aquiring Best Craftsmanship anything more or less impossible as it gives a -50 to the Aquisition. Mostly I'm confused as to why table 1-6 was needed at all, it would have been much easier to just check the availability for the component with common craftsmanship and then add the usual craftsmanship modifier to that like it says you should do in the core book (which would in this example result in a -60 modifier).
×
×
  • Create New...