Jump to content

1c33m4k3r

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About 1c33m4k3r

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://1c33m4k3r.tumblr.com
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Jacksonville, Florida, United States
  1. I strongly disagree with your proposal to make regiment creation part of the GM base rules. By having your players create the regiment they become much more invested and are more likely to view as "their" regiment rather than an army the GM foisted upon them. It is a simply brilliant move that encourages collaboration amongst the players and between the players and the GM. Only in the Training Doctrines section of regiment creation are there actually starting Aptitudes. And it's not as if those Doctrines with starting Aptitudes are lower-costed; one should have a little faith in one's players - all of you are basically guaranteed to devise a more interesting regiment than you could have alone! Are your players attempting to create duel-wielding Ogryn dervishes or seek to purchase multiple advances after every game? Because I am fairly certain that the game's XP allotment and Aptitude combinations is balanced around players purchasing one advance every session, or saving up for a really huge advance every other session.
  2. I proposed the same change to the Common Lore skill in the thread regarding Logistics and the Commerce skill, the latter of which should also use General instead of Knowledge for the same rationale stated above. As far as the Weapons Specialist starting with the Common Lores and the Sergeant not doing so, I believe it is intended to represent how the former is a fixture amongst the common soldiers and possesses more general experience in the Guard than the Sergeant. That, and to give the W.S. something to do other than shoot/slice things. Replacing the Knowledge aptitude with General should help make these Lores more attainable. Additionally, the 300/600/900/1200 scheme for skill advances that the user possesses one aptitude for is somewhat drastic. I believe 250/500/750/1000 would be less restrictive and reinforce the value of aptitudes in the assignment of advances.
  3. Yeah, Intelligence/Knowledge is a fairly restrictive Aptitude combination for Commerce - especially due to the skill's importance in performing requisitions. Perhaps Intelligence/General? That way, the Intelligence-based specialties would still receive the biggest discount and serve as the primary sources of acquisition, but groups would not be forced to include one of the three specialties simply for a feasible chance to requisition an item. As a side note, one would think Common Lore would also use General, rather than the extremely limited Knowledge aptitude. It's not extremely specialized information, after all, just general experience and whatnot. Are you using the Time Spent/Front Active/War Conditions variables? I would definitely throw the players a logistical bone with the regiment presence variable as well.
  4. The rules for melee weapon craftsmanship are extremely powerful and balanced for the reduced number of attacks typically made by close-quarter combatants (non-Lightning Attack, close range requirements, and so on). Also, melee weapons do not jam and there are no provisions made for such in their craftsmanship rules. Including a clause stating "Ranged weapons that already have the Reliable quality instead add 1 to their Penetration/Damage" to the paragraph explaining Good Craftsmanship for ranged weapons is just as simple and less likely to result in dramatic alterations of combat.
  5. Given guessmyname's support for killing the given comrade, I will rescind my proposal for an option to not kill a comrade. However, I feel a sidebar should accompany Summary Execution explaining proper circumstances for using this ability, seeking permission from the player in question before killing their comrade, and other such topics relevant to being a responsible player.
  6. I am not at all familiar with real-life gun operation - and I do not presume to assert that the WH40k roleplaying line should start embracing realism in all its mechanics - but doesn't a jam just result in the loss of a single round? That seems like it would be a good baseline mechanic for the "regular jam": it's still inconvenient but, as Cifer pointed out in their examples, not going to result in you losing the entirety of those oh-so-precious rounds simply because you had the misfortune to roll a 96 to 100. I know it is easier to change a specific weapon upgrade than a baseline game mechanic, but I feel there should be a re-evaluation of punishment for poor rolling.
  7. On page 111 in the description for the Psyker trait, it states that a character with the trait is able to purchase Psyniscience, Psy Rating, and Psychic Powers. There definitely needs to be a clause in the skill chapter stating that only Psyker characters may purchase Psyniscience, though.
  8. On a more serious note There should be an option to not execute a given comrade and bestow a smaller bonus upon the corresponding PC. Perhaps the PC only regains 1d5 wounds, or only ignores critical effects. The Ballistic Skill test should still be required, though; a wild shot would only perplex the squad or perhaps elicit even more confusion!
  9. I also believe that a differing bonus for those good-quality weapons that already have "Reliable" is needed. Even something as simple as a point of penetration or additional point of damage would go a long way towards rectifying this inconsistency, which has existed since Dark Heresy.
  10. I'm not a fan of Exploitation films, myself. I found "Hobo With A Shotgun" pretty horrifying... But I can respect what you are aiming for. If there's any game setting that lends itself well to ultraviolence for the sake of it, it would be the Warhammer 40,000 universe. Interested to see what characters your players make and how they plan to contribute to the Hunters' crusade.
  11. @8 spider: There is a large degree of difference between Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader weapon rules and Black Crusade. Not only are the ranges altered for the majority of weapons, there are damage and special quality modifications (Heavy Bolter with -/-/6 ROF instead of -/-/10 and dealing 1d10+8 rather than 2d10, to name a vital example).
  12. Oh, that is AWESOME, Cifer. I love how the deck plans, and by extension the entire ship, are slowly consumed by Chaos. I was definitely planning on running Broken Chains as the introductory scenario, and this will be a great help. Thank you.
  13. Seemingly devoted and purehearted members of the Imperium can unwittingly bolster the forces of Chaos and their followers. This isn't to say that every human that has sex channels power to Slaanesh, or that every battle the Imperial Guard engages in brings a Bloodthirster that much closer to manifestation. But the noble whose ennui drives him to experiment with thoroughly heinous sexual practices, or the Lord-General who refuses to admit defeat and sends hundreds of thousands of Guardsmen to their doom on a daily basis: these are the people that can subvert the faith of the Imperium and bring power to the dark gods, without their realizing it. This is purely my interpretation - no doubt others would argue that even seemingly innocuous acts can add to the collective power of the dark gods, and I think that is a perfectly valid view. Humanity struggling with its inner demons is a huge part of Warhammer 40K, and the forces of Chaos are both figurative and literal manifestations of these inner demons. Humanity slowly sliding into Chaos by simply being human is a delicious irony, and a theme that would no doubt be a hit at many game tables.
  14. From my interpretation of the Black Crusade setting conceits, Chaos Space Marines can be much more open-minded than their Loyalist counterparts. Why turn away anybody willing to assist you in overthrowing the Corpse-Emperor's stagnant Imperium? Remember that for a non-Space Marine to merely survive in the Screaming Vortex - let alone build up a reputation and begin gathering followers, as the Black Crusade humans do - they need to be pretty frigging skilled, depraved, or some combination of the two. If the Chaos Space Marines refuse to respect the "mere mortals", they could at the very least acknowledge their potential usefulness. As to the rampaging berserker quandry: I don't think any individual willing to murder their allies at the slightest provocation is a beneficial addition to the warband. The pre-made World Eater Berserker from Broken Chains was described as more than willing to enter battle any time, but respected authority - as long as said authority eventually brought about more combat for the berserker to participate in. I wholeheartedly recommend that route: it would bring about the opportunity for some inter-party conflict (when the Berserker is forced to abstain from a potentially massive conflict, for example), but not destabilize the entire structure (when the berserker decides the small talky-person has breathed for too long).
  15. 1c33m4k3r

    Bracing

    And I thought the -10 for Full Auto was a typo. Knowing that the penalty is intentional and that there is solid rationale behind it only further bolsters my desire to run Black Crusade.
×
×
  • Create New...