AtoMaki said: ^Yeah maybe just my past experiences are talking . Anyways, I wouldn't mind the 4+4 AGB if it would have some sort of counter-disadvantage. Like penalties when the character loses his Spirit Stone, some sort of limit to develop certain character aspects (maybe durability and hitting power) through limited aptitudes/Trait-bound penalties and so on. This way, the GM can present some situations what are challenging, but don't look like the convenient hard-counters of the character's biggest advantage. Losing the Spirit Stone would be fairly serious in RP terms (as in trip to the Eye of Terror to replace it). I'm not aware of any fluff that would indicate some kind of punitive mechanics. Again, I'm not real concerned with the PCs running away from combat. They're Eldar, if they didn't avoid combat unless 100% required by some objective, or overwhelming superiority, I'd think the players weren't getting into the spirt of the game. YMMV, especially if you've got a game of mixed races.

whoseyes said: AtoMaki said: I agree that with Unnatural Ag, the players would play the Eldar just as the Eldar is supposed to be played, but I'm more concerned about the possible challenges these characters could face and actually feel difficult to complete. Like, you can't throw Genestealers at the characters in every adventure… I'm sure it can be done. It's like thinking about challenges for deathwatch squad… Two basic ways to force a combat encounter on a group of highly moble PCs. One, take advice from Sun Tzu and create Death's Ground. Something the PCs *have* to attack or defend. Or you go the Alfred Hitchcock route and use a MacGuffin to lure them in. Also, as a GM, you can cheat. "Nope, that Lictor totally made 9 DOS on his stealth check and now you're trapped in the building until you can clear the rubble out…" (hidden enemies, restirctive terrain). For the most part I would think that a campaign with all Eldar PCs would be quite a bit more Stealth, recon and occasional caper than the typical Iggy or Space Marine kick the door in style game. "Well its that time of the Century for the festival of Ishkabibile. Unfourtunatly the humans seem to have built a fort on top of the ancient ruins where we hold the rites. Well, we've got a couple months still and there is that Space Hulk with all the Greenskins just over there. Why don't you five see what you can do while we begin the preperations for the festival."

whoseyes said: Unnatural Characteristic: In addition, whenever someone with an UCHAR succeeds on a test utilising that characteristic, they gain a number of bonus Degrees of Success equal to half of their UCHAR. I thought Unatural Characteristics lowered the difficulty….*shrug* must be recalling one of the other 40krpg rule sets. whoseyes said: Also, I think that giving eldar characters an Unnatural Agility of 4 is too much. Dark Eldar warriors and wyches from the NPCs of Only Wat have an Unnatural Agility of 3. Noted, thanks. I'm still tweaking the stat line.

AtoMaki said: The Kronus Bestiary has lots of Eldars in it. Most of them is WS40-50, BS40-50, S30-35, T30-35, Ag45-55(with Unnatural AG 4), Int35, Per40-45, WP40-50 and Fel 30-35. So I would say, an Eldar "fresh-face" would have WS35, BS35, S30, T30, AG40 (+Unnatural AG 4), Int 30, Per 35, WP 35, Fel 30 as starting Characteristics. Thank you, that was it. I may run with a 25 base and hand out more specific stat mods for being Eldar and in the Classes to get a more uneven distribution. 25 +2d10 (or 100 points) for all. +10 AG, +5 Per, than throw some appropriate stat mods into the classes. I'm aiming for graduated from Guardian school as a starting point, not so much with the fresh face. There is a joke in there somewhere about Eldar skin lotion/aging/beauty spa treatments… AtoMaki said: Though, I must add, an AGB of 4+4 is dead crazy for a character with a "free" development system like the Aptitudes. *eh* I had a Rogue Trader void farer, best **** fighter pilot in the galaxy. Had a dodge skill over 100% and still wound up heavly wounded after most fights. Can't dodge hordes. Can't dodge what you can't see. Can't always get more DOS than an autofire (or lighting) attack, any you've only got so many reactions. And Eldar are suppose to be sneaky. It'll be quite a novelty after 30 years of gaming to actually have an entire party that occasionally can sneak past an Orc guard rather than "oh screw it the guy in *insert heavy armor type here* is going to blow it anyway. Charge!!!" Sadly even with a Stealth skill of around 80, with 5 PCs rolling there is around a 1/3 chance one of them will blow the roll anyway…

AtoMaki said: Uhm, and how is the increased Characteristics? 30+2D10 (40+2D10 for AG) sounds a little bit too much. S40/T40 (the average for an Eldar character) is Ork category, and I don't think that an Eldar should start with the same Strength and Toughness as an Ork. Our gaming group has a custom 40k setting where one of the basic races is the Eldar. There, we simply gave them a "roll 3D10 for Characteristic, picking the two highest rolls" Trait to represent their superiority. Also, I think every Eldar should have the Psyker aptitude, as they are natural born psykers. Thanks for the input! Stat line is more about general power level of the campaign. 30 +2d10 was in line with what I felt about right. Compared to N0-1-H3r3's stat lines for Aspect warriors its actually low. IIRC FFG did publish "official" stats for a couple Eldar Aspect warriors in either a Rogue Trader or Deathwatch suppliment some where. I don't recall the stat line but I'd be suprised if there were any stats in the 20s for the Aspect Warriors. Guardians or civilian Eldar, sure. I'll dig though the mountain of books again and compare when I get home. I may go with a 25 for Str and Toughness as a starting point to balance out the 40 Ag. 50 Max Str/Tough starting may be a bit much once you add in any other stat mods from Char gen and then another +20 from advances. 75 str/tough is downright Phoenix Lord territory for Eldar. Good point, thanks. Psyker aptitude. I had a couple thoughts on this one. I thought about giving all Eldar Psykinisience but choose not to. And I wanted Warlocks to be the Psykers so they would get the appropriate skills/talents at a discount compared to the Aspect Warriors and Rangers. IMO if the GM wants to portray the low level psyker abilities of any Eldar its best done through RP rather than giving all PCs specific game mechanic. YMMV. Thanks for the read!

Hi, no house rule section yet and no Eldar section yet : ) so posting these here for anyone intrested. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JkiSRO1GO0aUIG2NEi8nhaZS6m3PqD2cbqKwWRLTT_A/edit?usp=sharing Intended for an Eldar campaign, not as creating Eldar PCs for your regiment. These characters are closer to Rogue Traders than Only War or Dark Heresy Characters. Its a rough draft at the momement but anyone thinking of running an Eldar game this should get you started. I also need to thank Nathan "N0-1-H3r3" Dowdell for much of the heavy lifting as I reference his work at http://www.n01h3r3.com many, many times. Let me know if anyone tries these out, I'd love to hear how it goes! Thanks!

Yeah the +Attack and +Dodge are straight from the Signature Wargear (master) Talent. But that means they would stack with it, might be OP. I've been trying to come up with something else. It needs to be mechanically "good" since the Signature Wargear talent is "good" and they cost the same XP. I think I may go with Can use reaction to make a melee attack for the arms, and can use reaction to make a 1/2 move for Bionic Locomotion, and change the Cyber Senses to re-roll failures. Solid abilities that can be picked up either in squad modes or other talents, but not by every specialty or chapter. The goal of the Signature Cyberware 2 is to be mechanically equal to Signature Wargear (master) but still be different. Also provide something meaningful for multiple specialties and not have a "no-brainer" choice. Thanks for the input Kshatriya!

Just fine AT finding… stupid no edit button.

I'm more inclined to let Iron Hands pay XP for the mechanical advantages of Cybernetics. Just a Free buff isn't what I was aiming for, I can hand out free candy just fine. The specific player that caused the discusion is just fine and finding mechanical advantages

The requisition rules for Cyber ware (IMO) are fairly open to interpretation to say the least. I've got an Assault Marine from the Iron Hands chapter playing in a game I'm starting and we decided to hammer out some clear cut guidelines. Here they are for your comment: General Cyberstuff. General rule is if something is shot or chewed or burned off you can get a new one. Or signature wargear can be used. There are deeds, chapters and other things that give you cyber bits we're not changing any of that. Tech Marines get as a class ability one common at char gen, one Exceptional at Respected, and a Master at Famed. Signature Wargear costs 500 as a General advance, gives you 20 points to buy crap. Enough for one common bit. 'er we go. An addition to the Iron Hands Chapter advance table: Signature Cyberware 1 Cost 500 Prerequisite Iron Hands Chapter Signature Cyberware 2 Cost 1000 Prerequisite Signature Cyberware 1, Rank 2 Signature Cyberware 3 Cost 1500 Prerequisite Signature Cyberware 2, Rank 6, Steel over Flesh 1 Signature Cyberware 1: Gain one common quality cyberware from the following list: Bionic Arm, Bionic Heart, Bionic Locomotion, Cyber Sense (any one), Bionic Respiratory System. Signature Cyberware 2: Choose one Exceptional quality from the following list: Bionic Arm, Bionic Heart, Bionic Locomotion, Cyber Sense (any one), Bionic Respiratory System. If an existing bionic is upgraded to Exceptional, choose an additional Bionic from the list at common quality. Additionally apply the effect from the following table to the Exceptional quality system selected with this talent Bionic Arm, Gain a +10 to WS attack rolls with this Arm. Specify right or left arm at selection Bionic Heart, +10 Toughness rolls Bionic Respiratory System, +2 wounds Bionic Locomotion, +10 to Dodge rolls Cyber Senses, +10 to any perception test made with that sense Signature Cyberware 3: Gain 70 req worth of cyberware from the following list: MIU, Auger Array, Bionic Arm, Bionic Heart, Bionic Locomotion, Cyber Sense (any one), Bionic Respiratory System. Exceptional items and Master quality items costs as per standard req rules. Designer's notes:Comparison to General Space Marine Advances Signature Wargear. Signature Wargear at rank one costs 500 and gets you 20 req worth of stuff. Signature Cyberware gets you 15 req. Slightly worse than the basic Talent (but honestly 1/2 the time you're not spending all of the 20 req from Signature Wargear, cause it doesn't always add up to 20). Signature Wargear (Master) adds 20 req to your wargear and gets you a choice of buffs from a chart. Signature Cyberware gets you 24 req and choice on a mechanically similar chart, slightly better than Signature Wargear (Master). Signature Cyberware 3 is the same req and xp cost as Signature Wargear (hero), but comes one rank sooner, and carries some insanity requirements to tie it to the fluff a bit more.

van Riebeeck said: "This game really favors the big ships out of proportion to the SP." Admiral Cain Are you serious there? About any other post (not to mention personnal experience) talking about the relationship between frigates and cruisers quite agrees that capital ships have been massively underpowered. Hopefully the OP doesn't mind the /threadjack... I've read the Mathammer thread and the Capitol ships not so Capitol thread (and others). My play experience and my own number crunching don't jive with those threads. But I'm loathe to jump into a "house rule" thread and tell people that the way they like to play a game is wrong : ) "Its duck, duck, goose!" "No, its duck, duck, grey duck!" -- probably only funny to midwest Americans, but best analogy I have. Van Riebeeck said "Considering both their BFG background and mass/manpower" I've never played BFG, but from what I gather you can get 12 Frigates for the cost of a Cruiser in that game? If RT allowed you to pick up a 12 pack of Frigates for the cost of a Cruiser given the ships capacities in RT I'd have tossed the book out a window. But in RT a Cruiser costs about 150% of a Frigate, and I'm not coming from a BFG background so I don't picture a Cruiser wiping out 6 Frigates a turn taking little to no damage in return. Mass/Manpower, sadly the mechanics do not reflect the fluff. I 100% agree. But from the perspective of a PC group, buying a ship on an SP budget a Cruiser is roughly 150% more expensive, but much more effective. A turbulent frigate v. a Lunnar Cruiser 42 SP v 60 SP, and Sunsears all around 44 SP to 65 SP. (I think we both agree that Sunsears are generally the best option for a Frigate?). Not quite 150% SP, close enough for government work. Frigate has 8 power, 4 space left for whatever else it needs. Lunnar Cruiser will have 12 power and 13 space. 50% more power, 300% more space for more PF boosters or more Dakka. (Miloslav Warp engines on both, otherwise standard essential components). Cruiser wins by more than 50%. FFG got single target damage output close to straight line growth, if not for the fact that Cruisers get bigger guns. Frigate 2 guns, Cruiser can put 3 guns on one target. Frigate has better arcs, but I've never had a problem getting the broadsides to bear on the light cruiser we run with, and I've had a pack of Eldar show up in our rear arc at knife range. In the hands of a PC group getting the cruiser broadsides on a target is rarely an issue, at most they'll need to perform a Come to a New Heading once in a while. A one turn -20 to shooting that happens in ambush scenarios. But 2 of the 3 Cruiser guns can be Broadsides, and the chase armament for a Cruiser can be Nova Cannons or Hecutor, or Bombardment Cannons. On a PC ship the STR 6 Broadsides matter. Those slacker NPC ships with a crew quality of 30 or 40? Not so much, but a PC ship after the extended actions is typically sitting at 80% to hit or more by rank 3 or 4. The two gun Frigate is at most 8 hits at d10+2. The Cruiser is at 12 hits max just from the Broadsides, the chase armament puts the Cruiser way over. Again, Cruiser by more than 50%, lots more. In terms of damage taken that second void shield really cuts down on the amount of damage you would expect to take from typical NPC ships. Our Secutor Light Cruiser has been attacked by three our four escort sized ships and rarely takes any damage. Vs. a NPC gunnery of 30 to 40 a Cruiser is all but immune to the two macrocannon armed escort classes. Even an NPC Cruiser with 2 broadsides and chase armament is only leaking damage through on a couple of good rolls. Ironically the best armament v. a PC with two shields are lances. They're terrible for PCs, but for the lower skilled NPCs that don't care about the SP, Power, or space, lances are the best chance at leaking a bit of damage through. Now if your GM is being particularly cruel and has a BattleCruiser with two broadsides and two chasers bearing down on you and rolls 16 hits the expanding ball of gas that was a Frigate can gloat "ha! I blew up at 9 hits, that cruiser went up at 12! Only 33% more hits..." So I'll call damage taken a draw. Spike damage goes to Frigate (with the caveat that the Frigate is going to die before the cruiser in any case), and multiple damage sources goes to Cruiser. Things I 100% agree with: Lances are a mechanical trap. PCs should never, ever, take them RAW. Also, SP/PF isn't a straight line trade off, however, once a PC group has decided on the split the bigger hull is mechanically a better choice. Yes the 70 point Frigate would be "fully kitted out". But the most common and effective PF boosters a ship can equip are hull and hold components and are a straight up test. It will not take long for the cruiser to catch up, and then pass the frigate. Its the standard RPG choice of slow start / strong finish vs. fast start/ weak finish. The longer the campaign the further ahead the cruiser gets. Apologies to the OP. /end threadjack

Xor said: We'll probably go for a warship, but not really a troop hauler. For weapons, shouldn't we keep the same weapons instead of mixing long and middle range? It's a bit awkward that way or so it feels, should we stay far away or should we try to close on the enemy... We didn't really intend on carrying torpedoes or crafts because i'm pretty sure our gm would, if not disallow, discourage us from plundering every enemy ships of their crafts/torpedoes (if we can find such enemies at all!) so we would have to replenish crafts or torp with acquisition tests which seem really hard to pass with our low PF... Yeah, skip Attack craft and torpedoes if your starting PF is 20ish. Too many tests to keep those weapons running at full strength. I also prefer to keep ship weapons of a similar range. If you're feeling fiesty you can put long range on the port side, short range on the starboard side and mount long range for your chasers. I wouldn't, but you could. As for Frigate v Cruiser.... seriously? Two 40 point frigates will die horribly to an 80 point Cruiser given equal crew skills. I'd be surprised if the cruiser took 20 hull in the 3 or 4 turns it would take to grind out two frigates. This game really favors the big ships out of proportion to the SP. If you can start in a Cruiser you should. Plus Cruisers can pack in a lot more PF boosting stuff than a frigate hull ever will. Keep in mind new guns are a -30 acquisition test, while hull and hold components are straight up. Get the biggest hull you can and pack it full of guns, fill the rest out as you play.

For 70 points I'd go with the Lunnar Cruiser with 5 Sunsears, the Planet Bound for Millennia ship background, and the Castellan Shield Array. Solid combat platform and lots of room for upgrades. If your group isn't inclined to spend acquisition tests on additional components lose the Background and the Castellan Shield and toss in your extra's. Personally Luxury passenger quarters, Barracks, Temple-Shrine to the God Emperor, and a Compartmentalized cargo hold. And you've still got something like 7 space and 14 power left, depending on the essential component choices you've made. Eventually you'll want to upgrade the Broadsides, to well, Broadsides, and a Munitorium when you get a chance.

NPC crew ratings vs the PCs skills are one of the advantages PCs have. Mind you why a crew of tens of thousands can't find one guy who has bought an advance or two... Anyway, you don't need to raise the crew rating. You can give the NPC crew section chiefs, Chief Gunner with a BS of 50 or so, Chief Engineer with a tech use skill, Ships Morale officer with a blather or charm skill, Captain with a Command skill, ect, ect. Just use the appropriate NPC once a turn for the extended actions. If the NPC ship needs to make multiple tests on the same skill use the crew rating for the second one. Personally I wouldn't do that for every ship, just the ones you want to be more dangerous. If you really want to mess with them, give the NPCs a Navigator with something like Stack the Deck. If you've got a specific ship (a rival Rogue Trader, or a recurring opponent) toss out a few names when you're making the rolls..."Looks like Magos Scotty has gotten the Void shields back online..." "Once again the Navigator Tremaine has bent the warp to his will and...." If the PCs start asking if they can do a hit and run raid on "that guy!" you're doing it right.