Jump to content

Capt_Dymock

Members
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Capt_Dymock

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago, Illinois, United States
  1. I'm wondering if I'm missing something about the Spawn trait for Hordes in Mark of the Xenos. According to the trait you can increase your magnitude when you take damage. You need to make a test, but if you pass you basically have the ability to negate the damage done. Take 1 point of magnitude damage? Spawn 1 new point. Take over 5? Spawn 1d5. Take over 10? Spawn 1d10. So far it makes sense. But at the end of the paragraph it says it's possible to have a Horde increase beyond its starting Magnitude with this trait. But mechanically is that even possible? The amount you spawn is always equal to or less than the damage you have to take to trigger the trait. Am I missing something? I think the idea of a horde actually growing in size while a Kill Team fights it is cool, but I don't see how it's mathematically possible with this Trait.
  2. One of my players would like to purchase a modified weapon, a 'back-up las pistol'. So... Las-pistol - Common With the following modifications Compact - Avg Red dot sight - Scarce Silencer - Plentiful How do the requisition rules work to acquire this weapon? This does fall more under "winging it" as it's not spelled out in the RAW, but if you don't want to make the player roll 4 times for all those pieces, then I would make the base difficulty the highest of the various components (scarce in this case), plus another level to reflect the fact that this is not random components but at this point is a highly customized, non-standard Las Pistol. The PC could also be given an opportunity to moderate this by using other skills such as Commerce or even Charm if they want to role-play the interaction and not just make a test to get some new gear. My general feeling on this whole topic is that the more abstract Influence system is just fine, it just takes a certain amount of GM discretion. Even 1st Ed required a lot of GM decisions. My current 1st Ed campaign is set in a hive with a population of 650 million. That doesn't mean I'm going to make every single acquisition roll for my players at the Difficult level or easier, as the chart on p126 would seem to suggest. Some things are still going to be impossible to get no matter what. Somewhat related, I'm running 1st ed right now and I don't think anyone has bought anything, mostly because they're based in a large Arbiters station right now anyway, so they're able to get SP weapons and light armor without any difficult. I don't even make them roll, because narratively it doesn't make sense in their situation. So even though technically Thrones are the currency of the 1st ed system, I'm using an abstracted "influence" system already. My final thought is that I have had a blast in past campaigns keeping close track of money. I played the only Noble Born in my group, and everyone kept coming to me for money for new equipment or even bribes. My character was kind of an ass about it, and he insisted people pay him back, and even charged interest to a couple people because they were wasting money recklessly. Another PC in our group (the scum, of course) got in several thousand Thrones deep with a Rogue Trader because of his gambling problem. This was also a fun turn of events for the story, and the kind of thing that would probably not have happened with the new Influence system. So long story short, I like both systems. They both have kinks to be worked out, but I don't think either one is fatally flawed. And it's not like it would be too onerous to just use the Thrones from 1st ed in 2nd ed. Influence could be reserved for actually influencing different groups and people, as opposed to just buying goods and services.
  3. There is one player in my group who does that (a fellow PC, I'm not the GM). It's often very amusing, as he's the only member of the party who constantly wants to loot, and the rest of us all tend to think (in game -- out of game he's a great guy) he's a little deranged or, in some scenarios, a dangerous impediment to our mission when he starts looting and tripping alarms in the bad guy's secret facility. He's had character who would literally rather die and start fights with their fellow acolytes than give up their loot. For players like this, I think it is purely an attitude and just how they approach the game/have fun with it. Changing the rules will not deter them from looting. I don't think my friend ever even managed to sell much of his loot, he would grab it and either use it as personal gear, or he would end up losing it somehow. He's more like a kleptomaniac than a looter.
  4. I like this idea too. Though I imagine it would have to be relative to the class of the weapon, otherwise you would imagine every single heavy weapon would have some degree of the Loud quality. So for example, a hand cannon could have Loud (2), but that doesn't mean it's louder than a heavy stubber that lacks that quality. It's just louder than comparable pistols. I could also see the Loud quality as being either incompatible with silencers or suppressors, or the silencer just removes the loud quality but doesn't give the normal penalties to hearing. I really do hope they fix the Silent quality though. It's frustrating to have a totally pointless weapon quality, which is what it is right now.
  5. I agree with this. DH 2.0, like any other RPG, is a game and the point is to make a character and get to interact with the world it's set in. This particular setting is supposed to be violent and to place an emphasis on how cheap human life is. That does not, in my opinion, translate to "it should be possible to instant kill anything." That's not realism or grim darkness, it's unnecessary punishment that leads to a high body count and little else. I've played plenty of DH sessions where I've already been mighty fearful of what lay around the next corner because I knew my character couldn't take a whole lot of punishment. Like Magnus said, there's no right or wrong answer here, but I personally feel that instant kill rules for anything other than what already exists is just going to make combat something PCs will dread, and not because it's supposed to be frightening, but because they don't want to roll poorly on their dodge and thus spend the rest of the evening creating a new character. One last note, I did immensely enjoy playing Only War, because it is incredibly deadly. In our group, in the span of maybe 7 or 8 sessions, 3 PC's died and a whole mess of comrades. But the reason I enjoyed that is because we were playing Guardsman in a war zone and the high mortality rate helped underline the trudging meat grinder feeling. DH, however, is about investigation, and I would prefer the rules focus more on that and allow a greater chance to survive combat, even if you are missing an arm or walking away with several new scars.
  6. Well, it is a pretty valid reason for the company. I know next to nothing about the game industry, but it's not hard to imagine that the development stage is very expensive in its own right. It's not like a couple guys got together and wrote a 300+ page rulebook, playtested it, tweaked it based on playtests, formatted it and got it laid out with illustrations, and released it as a beta without getting paid somewhere along the way. If they were going to scrap any part of it they would have done so pre-beta. Beta testing isn't done to create products or to meet the wishes of every potential customer, it's done to find the bugs in the product before its full release. Tweaking the armory for the first update was a relatively simple change that made a big difference in the game's functionality. Entirely scrapping the AP combat system and the wounds system is not a small change, and it's not going to happen. Unfortunate for those who don't like it, but don't blame FFG for not dumping their entire development budget on DH 2.0 down the drain.
  7. Yeah, Lathe Worlds is a better example. Not only did it make the Tech Priest capable of filling almost every roll, it also made rank 1 PCs significantly more powerful with the right background options.
  8. Capt_Dymock

    No Surrender

    I agree, I also would like to see human adversaries fighting against the Imperium who do not inevitably fall to chaos. I know this is heresy, but just because you don't agree with the ways of the Imperium doesn't mean you're automatically throwing in your lot with the ruinous powers. Not to mention the idea of being forced to fight alongside your current enemy for mutual benefit sounds like a lot more fun! On an unrelated note, something that occurred to me while reading the announcement for this: would anyone else find it interesting if the Only War adventures had options based on how successful you were in previous adventures? With the way Only War works it seems like a unique opportunity to throw in some options for the GM in future adventures. For example, suppose the next book concerns the assault on the planet this star fort is protecting. Well let's say your squad all died and their mission on the star fort was a total failure. Maybe the next book could have options the GM could use to show how much worse the fighting is planetside because taking the star fort consumed far more resources than the Guard had planned for. Or the other way around, if you're hugely successful there could be an option for increased resources or some such when you first make planetfall. They could all be optional little pieces, so you're not forced to follow one path or the other and so you're not forced to play every adventure in sequence, but I think given the military campaign nature of Only War it would be a cool element for FFG to introduce.
  9. I agree with your points, but as for the last part, I'm not sure what you're getting at. My only point there was that Rogue Trader had wandered into space marine territory in terms of damage output from adversaries. Obviously every line has some very deadly things in it, and it's not that Rogue Trader PC's couldn't handle a Rak'Gol, but the Rak'Gol felt much more like they were a fit for Deathwatch and not Rogue Trader. Which is a shame when you want to play PCs that are not that into combat (which I tend to do in RT). My missionary and void master I played in the last RT campaign I was in would have probably died in two hits at the most from one of those things. And, like I said, even a space marine would be hurt by one with their base damage. Not the biggest complaint in the world, but I definitely think they were a sign of the power creep in RT.
  10. I also think it would be nice to have any new weapons and gear have new yet specific purposes and uses. Just adding numbers to Pen and damage is uninteresting and quickly makes older weapons obsolete. I'd rather have the new items give you new tactical options instead of just being flat out more powerful. I remember rolling my eyes when I saw some of the stats for Rak'Gol in one of the Rogue Trader books. Their weapons have enough pen and base damage to hurt a Space Marine. And these are Rogue Trader adversaries?
  11. While I like the new system and don't mind the lack of compatibility, I can understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately for you, I strongly doubt FFG is going to change their minds about making 2.0 compatible with 1.0. They already made the decision and invested a lot of time and money in making this Beta, so for them the Beta process is more about making sure the rules work rather than making a complete overhaul to what's been written.
  12. Especially any gun in the core book. Not that the core book has to have weak weapons (and it doesn't, the weapons in it can be pretty deadly pretty quick), but we all know that there will be supplements later with more powerful weapons, just like in every other line. Putting a one-shot kill weapon in the core book kind of sets a high bar for any future additions.
  13. And I completely agree with the changes made to the sniper rifle. They make sense, they make it a much more useful gun, it's better balanced with everything else, and it still has a 0% chance of one shot killing anything above Elite rank that has not been previously wounded. Which is how it should be. The Vengeful quality is great, it makes it significantly more likely that a PC can play a sniper who is just popping off lower level bad guys. That's cool. What's less cool is designing it to one shot kill anything, which is what some people seem to want. GM fiat isn't needed to make the sniper rifle function. GM fiat is needed if the PC's want to attempt to assassinate someone in an out of combat scenario. But as far as combat goes, it would be absurd to have one weapon that somehow is so much better than all the others. If you want the sniper rifle to function in a "half-way reasonable manner," then all the other weapons need to as well, and then combat becomes a matter of who rolls the highest initiative because everyone will be able to kill someone with their first shot.
  14. If a PC's plan revolves around rolling three righteous furies it's not a good plan. An average roll, even with the Accurate bonus, would be 18 damage. That is easily survivable for anyone considered to be a Big Bad, even if they're not wearing armor. Using the sniper rifle in a carefully co-ordinated plan to take out the top leadership of the cult in one shot is a great idea if the Acolytes can pull it off. But it's a narrative solution, not a combat solution. If the PC's set up their plan well and roll well (to hit), then there's nothing stopping the GM from saying the Big Bad's head explodes like a watermelon. Conversely, if the GM wants this person to live, then there's nothing stopping him from having the Big Bad dodge, or have a force field, or have a loyal body guard take the hit. These are all narrative elements completely under the GM's control. The basic rules don't have to make a weapon that is an absolute-guaranteed-one-hit-kill for this scenario to take place. If you start doing that, why then should it be limited to the sniper rifle? Maybe my Assassin likes rocket launchers. A frag missile to the face could end up doing a whopping 2 damage if you roll snake eyes. That's not realistic. But that doesn't mean they need to make the frag missile a guaranteed kill. Or maybe I'm a death cult assassin and like the up close kill...even if I get every possible degree of success on my stealth roll and sneak right up behind the cult leader, I can't slit his throat and kill him instantly with the knife. All the arguments I keep seeing for the sniper rifle, or bolters, or melta, or anything else can all be applied to any other weapon under the right circumstances. But it would be a short, silly, brutal game if everything were that lethal, because if it's that lethal in the hands of a PC it's just as lethal in the hands of an NPC. I think I would be rightly pissed if I failed a dodge roll and burned a fate point from full health because some hired gun shot me from 400m away.
  15. ...6 RF? Wow, I must suck at rolling dice compared to you. Also, I feel like we're getting ahead of ourselves with Nomads and Mauler bolt pistols. Let's stick with the respective core books. So we're going hunting rifle and sniper rifle. We'll assume higher level enemies, since we're talking max damage and as we both know a righteous fury does instant kill low level NPCs in 2.0. Let's be generous and give this guy flak armor (and we're shooting him in the body, so AP 5) and a TB of 4. He's no mook. Hunting rifle max damage, assuming no bonus RF damage, is 33 damage 0 pen. That comes down to 24 damage. Ouch. That will put a lot of people into crits, no doubt, and if he has 15 wounds or fewer (and no True Grit) he's outright dead. So with THREE righteous furies we can one shot kill a top level NPC with 15 wounds or fewer. Sniper rifle max damage is 20, pen 3 (for an average rank one character), -6 from his 2 armor and 4 TB and we're at 16 on the wound chart (Dazed and Weakened (2) for 1d10-Sb rounds...ouch). And since you did two righteous furies the target gets a +20 to his next wound result. So no, you can't one shot kill someone, you can only one shot grievously wound them and then wait for a stiff breeze to roll in and finish them off. Oh, and it's Vengeance (8), so it's 3 times as likely to get a RF anyway. Which means if we are talking mooks, they're 3 times more likely to be instant killed by the sniper rifle. Yeah, getting hit 6 times more from bolt rounds can really hurt. And the autogun is a pretty different beast. Against an average NPC it's not even going to hurt them 20% of the time (assuming defence value of 5 you'd need a 3 or higher on each damage roll to get any damage at all), and a lot of the NPCs are even tougher. Don't tell me the Autogun is oh so much better when an unarmed Merchant can't be hurt by it 40% of the time (and forget the autopistol...that merchant is nigh on invincible in the face of that thing). Obviously we have different philosophies about how weapon power should work in the game, and that's fine. But I do think it's not unreasonable to have a weapon with a 400m range (thus allowing you to be safely away from combat for the most part) not be on par with dual wielding point blank bolt pistols or 3 hits from a power weapon.
×
×
  • Create New...