Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Zaldrak

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Mo, Modena, Italy
  1. Cifer said: @Zaldrak In your example, Space Marines wouldn't defeat Soviet Russa by taking on 4,000,000 men. They would do it by launching a drop pod right into the Kremlin and popping Stalin's ass and his high command. All accomplished with a single tactical squad of 10 marines. Although given Aluminiumwolf's scenario I presume killing Gorbachev might have a bigger effect than desecrating Stalin's remains, I very much doubt a squad of +10% Marines would be able to do that, assuming we're talking about a Soviet Union that knows about the concept of drop pods. A squad of ten marines more true to the novels probably could. Whoops, I read 1940 for some reason. Still, that's what they would do. According to the fluff (I'm talking tabletop fluff, not novels), the average human planet doesn't stand a much higher chance against this tactic than soviet Russa: depending on the technology and training of the opposition, the number of marines required to do do a lightning assault to an (human) enemy HQ might vary from a 10 man squad (modern day technology or lower) to an entire company (Fortress with Imperium level of technology), but they will do it and succeed.
  2. AluminiumWolf said: In 1990, soviet russia fielded 64,000 tanks in an army of 4,000,000 men, or one tank for every 63 men. So 16 million men could have 250,000 odd tanks. So for a company of Marines to be able to take a world like the fluff says they can, each must be able to outfight 2500 tanks. Bouncing lasguns is small beer. This is superheroic:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wrNMPRriwc Come back to me when Marines can hammer toss a Leman Russ. Space Marines don't take worlds by wiping out the defending army. That's the Imperial Guard job. Space Marines are the Emperor's Scalpel: they win wars by cutting the serpent's head. That means destroying enemy leadership and infrastructure with surgical strikes. In your example, Space Marines wouldn't defeat Soviet Russa by taking on 4,000,000 men. They would do it by launching a drop pod right into the Kremlin and popping Stalin's ass and his high command. All accomplished with a single tactical squad of 10 marines.
  3. Hmm, I don't think a Dreadnought could be a chapter master. Dreadnoughts need to sleep for very long periods of time, being awakened only every few hundred years for important battles. Thus, they would be unfit for chapter master duties.
  4. Ryder said: so yeah the start the CSM is going to draw more attention. You mean more respect? Since he will deal mostly with other renegades and Chaos worshippers in the Screaming Vortex...
  5. To all who say that a 7 feet tall giant is going to draw attention: please, stop it. First, as someone already pointed out, after a while human characters are probably going to draw just as much attention, due to tentacles, flaming skulls, bestial visages and whatnot. Second, yes, in imperial space, a chaos space marines draws attention. Too bad the default setting of the game isn't Imperial Space. In case you haven't noticed, the default setting is the Screaming Vortex, a place where the Dark Gods reign supreme. In fact, in a place like that, most of the time a Chaos Space Marine is going to get MORE respect and authority than a mere human heretic, (for the fact that he is a friggin' Chaos Space Marine!), thus facilitating social interactions. Yes, the GM can choose to move the setting to imperial space, and that could present difficulties for the average CSM. However, If he does that, it's either for a small part of the campaign, or else it isn't a standard Black Crusade Campaign and Chaos Space Marines weren't probably meant for that (after all, there's only one legion that operates undercover in Imperial space as standard procedure, and even then they usually employ human cultists as proxies). The same way that a Dark Heresy GM might move the setting to a Feral World inhabited exclusively by barbaric Chaos worshippers: you can bet that tech-priests and ministorum characters will have huge problems interacting socially with the locals of said planet. Yet, no one complains for that fact, because if that happens it's either a brief interlude in a standard Dark Heresy campaign, or it's a very nonstandard campaign for which characters like that were never meant.
  6. Adeptus-B said: Ecthelias said: I ruled as a GM that True Grit only counts your natural Toughness Bonus. My players agreed. That has precedent in the Tabletop game, where bonuses to Toughness (Mark of Nurgle, riding a Bike, etc) are not counted against Instant Death attacks. -------- And this argument that "The guys with the Big Guns will always attack the Marines only, and the guys with normal weapons will always attack the Mortals (or form into Hordes to attack Marines, but inexplicably split up if they get close to a Mortal PC)" came up in a previous thread about balancing CSMs and Mortals. I find it just as weak now as I did then- especially the accusation that if a Big Gunner ever targets a Mortal with what will surely be an auto-kill attack (because his line-of-sight to a CSM is blocked, for example), it is all the GM's fault, and not a responsiblity of the game to make combat, if not balanced, at least survivable to all characters of similar experience. Exactly. And as I said before, in combats meant to be challanging for marines, if the opposition is smart mortals are either ineffective (if they don't wield uber weapons/psionic), or a priority target (because I if there are multiple targets capable of dealing huge amount of damage I want to take out the one that dies in one hit first). @ Crisaron Bunch of nonsense and totally wrong assumptions about me and my group.
  7. Caboosebe said: I just don't understand what you are so mad about. If you read the Game Master section, there is clearly a paragraph wich says: "A Game Master may addept to rules to make the game more fun" It's an RPG - adapt to the situation. The rules are guide lines. You said it yourself that you will use other rules for True Grid. What is the point of being so mad about it? The fact tat I can make up rules is no excuse for them being stupid or incorrect as written, I expect better from a $60 book. True grit is the most outrageous example, but there are other mistakes as well that could have been easily avoided.
  8. Not to mention, that, instead of not using true grit, you could, I dunno, CHANGE the rues? Like using the old one, which is still borderline overpowered in my opinion, but at least not completely insane. Hopefully we'll soon get an errata that fixes it, I still hope for the sake of future rulesets that this isn't what the game designer intended...
  9. crisaron said: It depends on the chapter: - Dark Angel may not spend a fraction of time looking at the human before doing anything in there power to mince down the traitor marine... - A World Eater will take the first one to get in the way of is chain axe... - Codex Chapter will taken down your heavy target by order of priority but your humans should all be behind those hardened covers that give like +20 armor against said AA weapon else they deserve to die... OK if that jump pack assault marine jumps in the middle of them they are toasted but that was the job of the traitor marine to goat the assault marine into charging him... etc No balck and White m8ta, just a lot of grey... I said loyalist marine, not world eater. And you can bet that if the human was armed with a lascannon, then Dark Angel would spend more than a second looking at him... Marines are the best warriors out there because thy excel at strategy and tactics, not only because the're superhuman badass motherf*****s In the situation I described, a standard marine, no matter the chapter, would take the course of action that gives him and his brothers the highest chance to win the fight. And in most situations, that course of action would be to one shot the mortals with heavy weapons or psy powers, before starting to chip away slowly at the Chaos Marines criticals... In short, I think that this rule makes enemies with heavy weapons MORE likely to shhot humans instead of marines, not the contrary...
  10. Also: yes, in normal conditions enemies with heavy weapons would treat astartes as priority targets, but you can bet that the moment humans start to pose a real threat, for example by whipping out melta weapons or uber psy powers (i.e. doing something useful against enemies that might pose a challenge for marines) then the enemy will use their "anti-astartes" weapons to one shot the mortals, if given the chance. You're a loyalist space marine: would it be better to use your plasma gun to slightly injure a Chaos Marine (after that, on average it would require at least 4 more hits to bring him down) or to annihilate that human with a (insert uber heavy weapon here) in one shot? In most situations, the latter is the more tactically sound choice. I'm not playing NPCs as morons for the sake of non-existant balance in the rules (unless they really are morons, of course).
  11. Cifer said: Unless the heavy bolter or auto-fire rules massively changed, I'd say that's more like 30 criticals in the worst case. Yes, there are a few weapons that get de-fanged with the talent - the ones which can only fire single shots, have no Felling and don't go much beyond the ordinary soak. Once a weapon lacks one of those drawbacks, the risk is right back. Hum, Assuming BS of 30, they fire in auto mode at -10, plus -10 because target is running, so no, that's 3 criticals worst-case. Less if the marine is at full wounds. And you still didn't provide any reason why these rules are better. At most, you provided reasons for why it doesn't make any difference, and I don't even agree with that...
  12. Agh, the reply button is too close, I always mistake it for the edit button
  13. MILLANDSON said: Zaldrak said: Cifer said: ...because it's pretty hard to unbalance something that has no balance in the first place. ...Respectfully, I don't think that makes any sense at all. It makes perfect sense. If something isn't balanced to start with (with the addition that it might not have been intended to be balanced), how can you unbalance it? Hmm, I dunno, you might pheraps, uh ....duh... UNBALANCE IT WAY MORE???? MILLANDSON said: With or without True Grit, an anti-Astartes weapon is going to turn a human into giblets, which is sort of the point - a human isn't an Astartes, and will never be truly on the same level as one. You seem to be seeing this as a game problem, when I personally think that, if a GM is throwing anti-Astartes weapons at humans, it's actually a GM problem. RPGs are not required to be balanced, especially one where both normal humans and what are essentially ubermensch work side by side - there's no way to properly balance that, other than by the GM making sure to be sensible, at least not in a way that won't totally disregard the canon of Marines being able to shrug off what would vaporise a normal person. First off, Marines don't "shrug off" things that vaporize normal human: while it makes perfect sense that a marine lives through a hit that utterly destroys a normal human (like a heavy bolter shell in the face, I say in the face because we are assuming max damage rolled), making him live through six or more of said hits is pushing it too far. With the old true grit rules you could take three or maybe four of said hits, I think it was more fair and still superhuman enough. Second, I think True Grit is bad for the game because it turns every encounter that doesn't feature enemies equipped with lascannons or uber daemon weapons either trivial or extremely long for marines. In short, boring fights in which marines who face a worthy enemy (like another marine) chip away at their criticals 1 point at a time, taking too much of the game session (and if there are human players in the group, they re going to be pretty bored in the meantime, or they could try helping their marine friends and risk getting one-shotted by a stray hit). It also takes away the thrill of doing something risky, like running towards an enemy firing a bolter, because with the old rules and old criticals, a very lucky hit from an astartes bolter could indeed kill a marine on the spot (and thiings like that happen in the fluff), but now it's impossible: a group of three guardsmen in heavy cover handling a mounted heavy bolter 90 meters far away? Meh, I run to them, I'll be in melee in 3 rounds, that's 3 criticals in worst-case scenario, no risk at all. Sure, even with the old rules they were hardly a threat, but at least there was a little risk involved. It's not a matter of making human-marine mixed game even MORE difficult to run than the other 40k RPG lines not meant for such groups (although it does just that), even all-marine or all-human campaigns are severly affected by the nonsense that is this talent, for reasons that should be self evident. But hey, if the rules aren't meant to have even a semblance of balance, why use them in the first place? We should turn this into a 100% narrative game and use the space now taken by rules for more juicy fluff.
  14. Cifer said: ...because it's pretty hard to unbalance something that has no balance in the first place. ...Respectfully, I don't think that makes any sense at all.
  15. Cifer said: Please read what I'm writing before commenting that I'm "wrong". I noted that even without the True Grit talent, you can have ludicrous differences in soak value. Just take a human character with a 3 TB and 5 points of armour and a Marine with 8 TB and 10 Armour - bam, instant 10 points of soak difference, meaning the mortal will get the red-paste treatment while the CSM is at Crit-0. As long as not everyone invests in Toughness and Armour in the same way, you're going to have trouble balancing fights if every enemy shoots at every PC (instead of, say, reserving anti-tank weaponry against the walking tanks). And that makes creating an even greater soak difference in the form of the new True Grit a good idea because...?
  • Create New...