Jump to content

Captain Erf

Members
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Captain Erf

  1. Great work. I'd suggest putting the paragraphs Using bombs and Bomb Tokens right next to each other on the same page, because they are so related and I always look at the wrong one.
  2. Great! I'm interested to know how you feel it plays out. In particular, I wonder how it scales up if you'd field a whole swarm of double-loaded TIE Bombers. I think it will create a fun dynamic, one player trying to close in and the other attempting to keep his distance to get off that second salvo of missiles. There's a cinematic feel to taking on the threat of a fully armed bomber squadron, darting in with fighters to try and take them out before they can deliver their full payload
  3. It's *not* a "hit"! Chances are it'll just impact on the surface.
  4. I agree calling the star symbols 'hits' is confusing, especially to new players. That's why I would call these symbols 'stars', because after all it's Star Wars, and then when you roll a crit you can call it a 'crit star', which sounds like a new ultimate weapon of the evil Galactic Empire.
  5. Why does everyone prefer an Advance Targeting Computer over Accuracy Corrector for Vader? An extra crit is nice of course, but with the Accuracy Corrector you gain close to maximum efficiency from those humble 2 attack dice, without needing to pay any attention to (modifying) your roll. Meaning you can use all your actions for positioning or defense, particulary if you also get the Engine Upgrade.
  6. True. I think the most elegant fix would be that if the attacker spends a target lock to perform an attack with a secondary weapon, he may also reroll his attack dice as normal when spending a target lock. It helps ordnance AND it makes more sense that the game term "spending a target lock" has the same effect that players expect. Or FFG should have used different terms for different effects, such as "discarding" a target lock to make the attack and "spending" a target lock to reroll dice, for example. Also, it's very easy fix to implement as it doesn't require any revision of the cards or the game rules, just a change to one of the FAQs. I only wonder if it doesn't make any of the newer missiles too powerful.
  7. Like many players, I rarely field ordnance, particularly torpedoes. They cost a lot of points that are easily wasted if you roll poorly on your attack, and there’s no way to mitigate poor dice rolling. I’d rathter spend those points on upgrades that grant me benefits throughout the game, rather than on an unreliable, overpriced one-shot ability. Sadly, the impopularity of ordnance means two of my favorite models hardly get used: the Y-Wing and TIE Bomber. Both are designed to carry multiple ordnance weapons, but I’ve never seen anyone spend 8-10 extra points on one (pretty underwhelming) ships for more of these (pretty underwhelming) weapons. The extra ordnance icons on their upgrade bars are wasted. That’s why I came up with the following 2 pts Torpedo Upgrade card: “Double Payload: When attacking with a secondary weapon that instructs you to discard it to perform the attack, you may discard this card instead.” It’s better than a Munitions Failsafe because you can use your torpedoes twice even if you hit the first time. Essentially, it gives you a second torpedo at a massive discount, but only for ships that can carry multiple torpedoes. Of course it doesn’t fix any of the ordnance issues for other ships, but then it neither requires any changes to the game rules nor a massive (and unlikely) overhaul of all the ordnance weapons point costs. I do believe such a card will lead to an increase in both the use of torpedoes and of Y-Wings and TIE Bombers, in exactly their intended roles: as dedicated and efficient ordnance carriers. And I would suggest introducing this card in a long overdue “Rebel Veterans” box that includes a variant Y-wing and introduces Tiree and other Y-Wing pilots with elite talent uprades . (PS note that in the current wording, a TIE Bomber could use this upgrade on missiles as well. Not sure if that’s needed, but the text could be changed to apply to Torpedoes only).
  8. Wouldn't the most elegant solution be to leave Overwatch as is, and remove the restriction on not being allowed to Evade during your own turn? Why is that restriction there in the first place? Why can I dodge when it's NOT my turn, but not on my active turn? What's that supposed to represent? Likewise, why can I Parry before leaving melee, or after, but not at the moment I'm actively doing my best to disengage?
  9. "When a target is struck by a Concussive weapon, he must take a Toughness Test (...). If he fails, the target is Stunned for 1 Round per Degree of Failure. Additionally, if the target takes Damage greater than his Strength Bonus, he is knocked Prone." The "additionally" part is unclear to me. Is the target knocked Prone whenever he takes Damage greater than his Strength Bonus, regardless of the Toughness Test? Or only if he failed the Toughness Test? Thanks!
  10. Thanks guys for the prompt replies and for sharing your views. It's very useful. One thing I can already appreciate about this game is the lively and helpful community I do have one further question. It seems with some of the expansions, the ship card (the one that goes into the plastic stand) is printed on both sides. That seems a bit odd, wouldn't that prevent you from flying the two pilots printed on one card simultaneously?
  11. Hi all, A friend and I are considering jumping into this game. While I realize there are probably tons of ‘help me get started’ posts, the thing is the metagame can change with each new release and new options keep coming in. So I’d like to ask, if you were to start with the hobby anew, with the benefit of hindsight, what ships would you get first? What ships would you get later? What would you not get at all? I am not interested in joining tournaments so it’s mostly for casual (yet competitive!) play. Also I should add I’m only interested in ship designs from the actual movies. Aces with alternate paint jobs are fine, but nothing from the EU (except maybe the Phantom, that one looks cool.) Some specific questions: 1. How much of this game (and the outcome) depends on outthinking and outmaneuvering your opponent (using the maneuvering dials)? How much depends on making killer combo’s of cards/listbuilding? How much on luck/dice rolling? (I’d hope it be something like 60/30/10 but I fear luck may play a larger part than that?) 2. Is it mandatory to get a second core set? Why wouldn’t you buy three separate ships instead? 3. Are the first TIE fighter and X Wing expansions still considered a must-have? And even if you would get 2 core sets? 4. Any other must-have expansions for beginning play? 5. Any models to avoid? Every game has its deadweight models that are just outclassed because other models do the same thing better or for a lower point cost. I’ve heard as much about the TIE advanced, but it would be a crying shame to play this game without Darth Vader! 6. Are upgrades unique to a certain expansion? Would an Imperial player need to buy a Rebel ship just to get access to certain upgrades/rules? Thanks!
  12. Yo’re not alone on this Ghaundan, I have the exact same issues with the shock table. While a Fear mechanic is entirely appropriate, the current version is just No Fun. Fun is when the game challenges you to make tough but meaningful decisions. But with most Shock results, you don’t get to make any decisions at all – in fact, it’s likely you won’t even be participating in the encounter anymore. Odds are you are more likely to fail your WP test to snap out of it than to succeed. All you can do is wait for your turn, probably fail your roll, and wait some more. What is supposed to be a terrifying encounter for the PC becomes the very opposite: a boring and frustrating sit out. What’s worse is the result where a PC falls unconscious for 1d5 hours. Especially in Dark Heresy 2.0, which adds “from which he cannot be roused.” In other words, whatever clever things you or your friends try to do to get you back in the game, it won’t work. In some scenario’s, 1d5 hours may well mean you’re out of it for the rest of the game session. But hey, thanks for coming over! Guess you really shouldn’t have botched that roll! One ‘fix’ we quickly added was that a character can spend an action to assist another PC to ‘snap out of’, by allowing a re-roll (a simple +10 often won’t cut it). I also like the suggestions by DeathByGrotz and Ranoncles (automatically snap out of it at the cost of 1d5 Insanity points, or use a fate point - see ‘tough but meaningful decisions’ above.) But these fixes are still attempts to ignore the Fear effect, rather than making Fear interesting and challenging.
  13. Since Leadership only affects one skill and two talents and no Characteristics, I agree it is a crap aptitude and removing it is the easiest way to fix it, instead of reshuffling the aptitudes of a lot of social skills and talents.
  14. Crap, now my book is starting to come apart too, at p.289. And I hardly used it and treat my books like an archivist from Prol IX would. And I paid 60 euro for it, which is a lot for a single book. I'm thinking the same thing. The problem seems prevalent, until they make a new print run of better quality. Maybe its because it has more pages than previous rulebooks. But with some stringent editing they could've easily trimmed the book down. Some parts seem to be just page filler, some paragraphs simply repeat a previous paragraph in slightly different words. Other parts are just over-elaborate on extremely simple points.
  15. RAW, you’re still not allowed to assign your characteristics scores as desired. An ancient and outdated model of char gen that doesn’t help you to make the character you want to play. Your rapier-wielding roguish scoundrel could end up with crappy WS, Ag and Fel and your gaunt old Sage could have killer Str, T and WS and paltry Int. Combat still takes forever to resolve and encourages everyone in the setting to wear big helmets. The chapter on Social Interaction states Interaction skills only affect a number of people equal to Fel Bonus, while it is actually ten times that number. (Nitpicking I know, but the same copy/paste error persists from Only War).
  16. I agree. Creating an entirely different procedure for resolving an attack just for one specific weapon causes more headaches than it's worth. Because you also need to change how to-hit modifiers work, and jamming, and weapon proficiency, and what not. Why not simply go with some variant of the Blast quality. You just make an attack roll based on BS as normal, and you can may also hit targets standing nearby.
  17. While society and the cosmos in the grimdark may be cruel and unfair, the rules system should not be. Rolling for the Emperor´s Blessing each session actually sounds like a pretty good fix. It´s worse in Only War, btw. In OW the starting numbering of fate points is not even 'balanced' against other aspects of character generation. Everybody first creates their character on (presumably) equal terms. And then you roll on the fate point table and a lucky player will get three times the number of fate points (and thus survivability) of an average rolling player. Personally I think all players should start with the same number of fate points, given their importance. All players are invested equally in making their characters. I don't see why some characters should get more "lives" than other characters.
  18. I’m inclined to agree with Lynata that “faith powers” ought to stem from a mundane source: strength of conviction, monastic training or extraordinary force of will. Having said that, I can also imagine ‘flashier’ powers that have more supernatural effects, if these are explained as psychic effects. After all, if Mankind’s fears and passions can give birth to Daemons and such, it wouldn’t be so strange to assume that they could, more or less unconsciously, also generate more beneficial effects in the pious. However, these powers should then be subject to the psychic power rules (ie an Untouchable could nullify them, etc) and it just doesn’t sit well with the fluff to have so many (unknowing) psychic users in the Ministorum. But how would you explain Holy or Blessed weapons? Can’t recall the exact name, but isn’t there a weapon quality that has a very real effects on Daemons (like ignoring their Daemonic trait bonus or something)? Would this be purely the result of psy-engineering, like a force weapon? Thus making the Psykana the major source of holy weapons? Or would it be purely the faith of the wielder that his weapon is holy, which is enough to convince a daemon since they are themselves products of emotions/nightmare/belief? Which would make the Ecclesiarchy the major repository of holy weaponry?
  19. Awareness should simply be a Talent that allows you to reroll a failed (senses based) Perception check or something. Turning it into a skill means everybody without it is turned into a blundering idiot with dulled senses, due to the -20 penalty.
  20. My experience is the same – people save fate points for failed dodge rolls. PCs don’t think about healing until they’ve taken critical damage –which they can’t heal with fate. But even if they had healed in time, the 1d5 probably wouldn’t have made enough difference to prevent going down from the next hit. Occasionally someone might re-roll a failed test out of frustration (usually an attack), but that usually comes back to bite them in their posteriorum as they invariably will be out of fate points when they really need them – ie to reroll a dodge. However, it seems many people may have missed a crucial change to the fate point system in second edition. GMs can now award (temporary) fate points instantly during a session to reward such thing as good roleplaying or problemsolving. And since a player cannot have more fate points than his threshold, a bonus point would go to waste unless a player had already spend some. So this may encourage players to spend their fate points more freely. It’s somewhat similar to the style points in the charming Hollow Earth Expedition RPG, where a player receives a style point for doing something cool, which he can then spend to boost a dice roll. In HEX, there’s a constant back and forth dynamic with style points (best represented with poker chips – it’s a pulp setting) flying around the table. I doubt it fate points will have the same dynamic, since they are more valuable than style points, but at least there’s some incentive to spend them IF the GM remembers to hand them out as well!
  21. I agree a chirurgeon has its uses. But I'm not sure it requires a separate character class. Shouldn't a flexible Sage class, with the right talents and skills, allow you to play a mad doctor? Also not too sure about this focus on torture. Sure it happens in the grimdark, but roleplaying torture scenes just gets kinda weird.
  22. Wouldn't this only apply to the later games where basic success has you start with 1 DoS? Agreed about the DoF tho. :/ Ah yes, that's right. Sorry, been playing mostly OW these days
  23. Just take the tens digit of your roll. At least if I'm interpreting this right. If you're rolling a 28, you have 2 DoS. If you roll a 44, you have 4 DoS. If you roll a 5, zero DoS. All provided that the Test otherwise is still a success, of course. That's the easy thing about this houserule: you literally just take the tens as-is. To be precise, with the EasyDoS rule your total Degrees of Success is tens digit + 1. Or, to phrase it differently, you get one DoS for passing your test and you score a number of additional successes equal to the tens digit. Unfortunately I don't think there's a neat equivalent method for Degrees of Failure. Our math adept came up with "DoF = 10 minus the tens digit"... It's mathematically sound but too counterintuitive to my taste, because it means that the higher you roll, the less DoF you gain, while rolling just above your target number would mean a catastrophic failure. The probabilities are (practically) the same as with the normal DoF rule, but it just feels wrong. Fortunately, DoF aren't nearly used as much as DoS. You can still use the old method for calculating DoF.
  24. Man, that EasyDoS rule is brilliant. Also a little unintuitive, because with the normal DoS rule rolling low is better, and now you want to roll high, but not too high... but still your method is very elegant and fast. And mathematically pretty sound, according to our math adept.
  25. True. Without a good driver you'd still be ramming things, just not the things you want.
×
×
  • Create New...