Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SublimeShadow

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Renton/Seattle, Washington, United States
  1. I think before we get anywhere it might be useful to pull apart Evasion/Defense for Melee and Ranged. Dodging blows in Melee makes sense with a lot of the mods Brother Orpheo mentioned. Not so for ranged. Additionally, it would make sense that a Guardsman might be better at avoiding ranged attacks, while a Death Cult Assassin would be hard to hit in melee. At any rate, most of the current defensive mechanics against shooting make very little sense.
  2. In my game we have Evade (an agility test, useful in melee, but is only ever half the Evade skill when used against non-primitive ranged weapons). Then we have Dive for Cover (a -10 Evade Test if you have cover within 1 meter), all successfully negated hits strike the cover. Finally we have Hit the Deck (a -20 Evade Test) in which you gain the prone condition. All these are opposed. My players have taken to calling "Dive for Cover" Duck for when they are behind cover, but have body parts exposed due to shooting, and then attempt to avoid incoming fire. It works pretty well.
  3. To be fair, some people on this board have been playing pen and paper a long time, so they can peruse and come to a conclusion with minimal game-play before going back to their house-rules. They can come back here and report problems they've found and propose solutions (if they have them) without playing it extensively. Sure they're anecdotal evidence is limited to non-existent but sound theory regarding the rules is more important anyway.
  4. One other thing with guns. OW shooting mechanics aside, all the guns my group uses have an additional stat, accuracy. Instead of +10 for Aim actions, the Aim action awards a bonus equal to the gun's accuracy. Adds a little variation to the guns and gives something for "good" and "best" qualities to have besides never jamming and extra damage.
  5. Been there, done that. It's where our house rules come from. However, the fixes weren't implemented so now we are just building the system we most enjoy playing. Only War is ok, nothing against it, but we like the changes we made to the first beta better.
  6. I wouldn't be happy either. However, that is what force weapons do, why they're rare, and why they should be feared/respected. That said, it would perhaps be more fun for it to be an opposed wp test, like the old Eldar mind duel.
  7. I like the sound of what Nimsim is mentioning. To respond to cps, I just wanted to see which way the wind blew first. My dislike of the system revolves around a few things: 0-100 Insanity points. Another stat to keep track of that doesn't feel intuitive. Being "removed from play" as the result of Insanity should happen via what Insanity has done to you, not via an arbitrary cut off. The randomness. A few people mentioned it above. Most people have predispositions towards certain kinds of responses to mental trauma. Rolling randomly doesn't feel good. It can be amusing, but most of the time its just bothersome and annoying. Stimuli, while not invoking the same reactions in all people, tend to invoke similar ones. The most simple sources of stress usually activate the fight or flight response. Seeing something "scary" usually has predictable effects. In the Insanity system as it is now though, its completely random. Seeing a bear could cause me to, as mentioned earlier, shoot everyone in my party. Not intuitive. The current failure table has a lot of minor penalties that seem to be in place to make most failed tests generic anyway. Why not give stressing stimuli fear "types" again like in the beta? The mental traumas feel bizarre. Its a nice idea to have them, as traumatic events can lead to changes in mental state for short (or very long) periods of time but they don't feel very "good". They aren't related to the trauma that brought them on. They aren't mitigated by help. There is no way for them to affect the character further. Playing off the last point, why are there no actual conditions? Mood disorders, dissociative disorders, anxiety disorders, stress disorders. PTSD should be pretty easy to get in Dark Heresy. That said, some of the mental traumas approximate these disorders but do it poorly. Unless people's campaigns are lightning fast, characters dealing with issues over long stretches of time can add depth and flavor.
  8. I posted this in general just to see where it would get more traction. I, personally, am not fond of the Insanity system. I have a multitude of reasons I can relay if people desire but first I'd like to hear what people think of it.
  9. I, personally, am not fond of the Insanity system. I have a multitude of reasons I can relay if people desire but first I'd like to hear what people think of it.
  10. My group uses a ton of house rules. Its gotten to the point that we've started building our own rulebook, as its too confusing to glance at the 2nd ed Beta 1, the 2nd ed Beta 2, the original, and the houserules. At this point its a blend of Eclipse Phase, Only War, Dark Heresy 2nd ed Beta 1 & 2, and some minor house-rule tweaks.
  11. That just doesn't really work with the lore. Officio recruits are typically schola progenium or feral world kids who are scooped up for one reason or another and honed into weapons while they grow up. Its not really in the canon for them to accept outside people and flip them into bonafide temple assassins. As a result, a "role", "career", "path", "advance", or whatever you want to call it really doesn't make sense as they are trained inside the temple until they are ready, then used as seen fit. At best maybe a PC could be an escaped, abandoned, forgotten, etc. aspirant that the inquisitor picked up, but by that point it still wouldn't make sense for them to have an advancement path labelled "officio". I know this might seem fun-killing, but it has more to do with the lore than what you want to achieve. I'm all for more character gen. options, just not ones that don't make sense in-universe.
  12. I see your reasoning but it hinders the debate. We have very few lore instances of Pariah's (if any) outside of that temple. Most mentions of the headgear seem to imply that what it does is "weaponize" their warp negativity so they can shoot "negative energy" or something like that out of the headgear. Using them as a reference to argue that Untouchables and Pariahs are different still seems valid. Furthermore, it doesn't really effect the issue of whether or not PC's can be Pariahs as there is a system in place for PC's to be Untouchables, not Pariahs, and doesn't influence how rare Pariahs are.
  13. Glad to see my method getting some love! So long as the injury system is fast, brutal, and "feels right" its great in my book. Having "Wound Pools" (original DH, OW, BC, etc., etc.) checks the fast box. The brutal box only really happens when you hit crit or, like in BC, you roll on the crit tables for righteous fury. Still though, getting shot and removing wounds has never "felt right" to me.
  14. True. However, its my understanding that (aside from the headgear) all that does is make them better assassins, not better pariahs.
  15. I, personally, think Called Shot should just be rolled into the Aim action. What are you aiming AT exactly? An aim action with several sub-options would be nice.
  • Create New...