Jump to content

Beliaal

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Beliaal

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Zagreb, , Croatia
  1. If I may interject, and compile what has allready been said by Face Eater and Unusualsuspect to clarify several issues. Going by wording and implications, the wording in the Lathe Blade (weapon upgrade) entry in IH disputes the reasoning for separate Pen values, as it states, and I quote, "A Lathe-bladed weapon loses it Primitive quality. Increase the weapon's Damage by 2 and it's Penetration by +3.". Same goes for Mono in DH Core Rulebook which states "Mono waapons no longer count as Primitive and add +2 bonus to their Penetration." In the instance of two seperate Pen values for weapons with the Primitive quality, one being 0 and the other whatever is listed, upon losing the Primitive quality they would be left with Pen 0, and there would be no need to state that "something increases Penetration by X", as that "X" would always be the final Pen you'd end up with. Now, please note that I am refering to separate Pen values here, not Pen values that count as 0, which would bring me to my next point. While the sentance "The Penetration of weapons with the Primitive quality only applies to armour that also has the Primitive quality." does indeed imply that the Pen value of weapons with the Primitive quality is disregarded when used on non-Primitive armour, it states nothing to the fact that said Pen value is granted by the Primitive quality, only that it's mitigated by it. As such, it would, by all accounts remain unchanged once the weapon loses it's Primitive quality. This is also consistant with the previously mentioned wording of weapon upgrades that remove a weapons Primitive quality and increase it's Penetration by a figure rather than saying it is a set figure. It might also be noteworthy to point out that the current errata ammends Man-Stopper Bullets in exactly way depicted here, stating that a weapon using them "…increases it's Penetration to 3", while not dealing with the Penetration increasement of the Mono and Lathe weapon upgrades at all. Most importantly, regardless of what you might think of my interpretation of RAW, the current errata (3.0) postdates the first edition of IH. Of course, if you think that this is unbalanced, you are free to run your game any way you like. On a side note, I do think that Mono is somewhat underpriced, since, when comparing a Mono-Sword with a Chain Sword, Tearing and +2 Damage amount to 220 TG. For a someone not a Moritat. I ended up running my games with Mono costing 100+, and the Moritats starting with a regular sword. Now, to answer the OP, that would depend on your character style. If strictly going by numbers, I'd go for a Lathe Greatweapon, since with two talents you'd be looking at three 2d10+2+S, Pen 5 attacks, while the alternative is four talents and four 1d10+3+S, Pen 4 attacks at -10 WS. Or something in that vicinity. Still, impersonating a noble with a 5 foot sword strapped to your back might be a tad hard to pull off
  2. Thanks everybody, this certainly helps. I think I mislead you a bit with my opening post/remark for which I am sorry. The Acolytes don't actually have any means (aside from the possibility of them formulating an exceptionally cunning plan… con) to acquire the… well, means to track and follow a ship through the warp. They are running a covert op concerning the ship while parallely running an entirely unrelated overt op (to be precise, it's Illumination). They have no direct proof of their Inquisitorial status other than Aristarchus who could technically corroborate that they are Acolytes of another inquisitor on loan to him, but he isn't privy to the nature or even the existance of their covert op, and, more importantly, will most likely be dead by the time they would need him to do that. Besides, the status of Inquisitorial Acolyte doesn't really carry much weight when trying to commandeer a ship, 'tleast in my book. Plus, they are short on cash. Also, they aren't under orders to follow the ship anyhow (though they'll probably whish they had followed it by the time the story unfolds). Now, the importance of this fact can be mitigated by the Accolytes eagerness, but knowing my group, it's highly unlikely that they'll try to follow it. As such, the question in my first post should have been formulated more clearly, somewhere in the lines "Can an educated individual make a relatively precise educated guess as to the next destination of a ship when in posession of said ship's (more or less) exact telemetry at the moment just prior to it entering the warp." Having said that, this all was written simply to rectify my mistake for the sake of posterity, since you all managed to figure out what I was going after
  3. During the preparation for a campaign I am currenty running, it occured to me that the players will be highly interested in the possibility of tracking a ship's warp trajectory. Now, the information they will have at their disposal will probably only incude telemetry data composed of the ships local bearing and speed from the ships jump point and, on the off chance, a pict of the ships position and allignment before entering warp (with noticable stars they could use as reference points for Logic, Navigation (Stellar), Scholastic Lore (Astromancy) and/or Forbidden Lore (Warp) checks). I keep picturing it as pointing the ship precisely towards your desired destination followed by attempting to traverse trough the Warp in an as straight as possible line,albeit with course corrections depending on warp currents, and with the slightest diferences in th ships initial bearing (in the range of a couple of meters, degrees, radians) leading to vastly different destinations. Assuming that this idea is sound, the mechanic for calculating a trajectory that I had in mind would work, but if not, I have no clue how to approach it. And, unfortunately, my players (as well as me personally) like it when things are elaborated into fine detail. Now, since I can't really find anything in the fluff that would corroborate my idea, or infact anything that deals with the subject in the necessary detail, my dillema is, is it plausible, with the noted information in hand, to calculate a basic line trajectory of a ship traversing the warp? Or, better still, how is actual warp travel handled fluff wise? Or general-consensus wise? Or how would you handle something like this? Obviously, any thoughts or observartions are kindly appreciated.
  4. ItsUncertainWho said: Beliaal said: A reason why your characters can't or don't do that stuff at all may lay in the fact that they simply don't know they can do such things. I have never had players assume they can't do something. I usually have to reign them in when it comes to their actions. I also just realized I didn't include any smileys in my previous post. The first line about players was meant as a tongue-in-cheek comment. I have never had players with a lack of creativity. More often than not they have too much creativity and end up with solutions that surprise me. Off Topic Really? ****, some people have all the luck. I thought you were perfectly serious,since my gaming group is somewhat challanged in the practical creativity department. Even in combat. I could blame it on the fact that they were brought up on fantasy RPG games (mostly D&D), DH being their first venture into 40 k, or for that matter, SF waters. However, I prefere to blame it on their old GM who has a bluntly direct hack'n'slash approach to game mastering. I honestly think that during all of their years of playing, none of them ever thought to pick up a single spell not related to combat directly. Funily enough, by their own admission, they enjoy the actual roleplaying and immersive details, so while it took some time for them to get used to my 3 sessions - 1 fight style rather than the 1 session - 30 fights style the were accustomed to ,they have mostly grown out of the "enter tavern, draw sword, roll initiative" hack'n'slash stupor. But it was a slow an arduous task teaching them that It's not possible under these conditions should translate into Can I change the conditions somehow? rather than into It's not possible, period. But, enough of my frustrations
  5. The errata clears this up (p. 2). Every degree of success adds an extra hit.
  6. tcabril said: I just finished Scourge the Heretic (by Sandy Mitchell) (Great Book by the way...) and I noticed that the tech priest character (who's name escapes me at this moment) is using the computers and computer interfaces to hack data and create false news reports and all sorts of "cyber punk" stuff and when I look through the skills the closest I can find is that the "Tech Use" skill is the only skill that comes close to being able to do this. Am I missing something? I do notice that in many of the Black Library novels (such as the Gaunt's Ghosts, Caiphas Cain and the other Mitchell book "Innocence Proves Nothing" the characters make a better use of technology that the PCs in Dark Heresy seem to be able to. I understand that storywise it may need to be done to move the plot along but I am trying to figure out why my characters in Dark Heresy can't do all that stuff! Any and all thought appreciated. Todd A reason why your characters can't or don't do that stuff at all may lay in the fact that they simply don't know they can do such things. While it's true, as ItsUncertainWho postulated, that the lack of creativity on the players may be to blame, that lack may easily be caused by them operating on the mistaken belief, perhaps not having read Scourge or Innocence , that they simply cannot produce such feats in this setting. You can, of course, try to stimulate their creativeness by inserting an easy, "solve or s**tstorm happens" hacking situation and allowing the Tech-Use...er(s) to test his (their) Intelligence (literally) to divine what must be done. They should, probably, quickly pick up on what they can and can't with hacking stuff. As for Tech-Use being the only skill that can do hacking, it's not. Well, technically, it is, but it really isn't. As I use it in my campaigns, Tech-Use is simply the practical knowhow - how to activate, use, fix and, occasionally, make things. For instance, I'd only require a Tech-Use test for someone wanting to get a cogitator to do something it's supposed to. However, to make a cogitator do something it's not meant to I'd probably require a Logics test, to figure out how exactly to do it, followed by a Tech Use test to actually implement it. Or an exceedingly difficult Tech Use test, since practical knowledge may be enough to get you where you are wanting to go. For example, at one point during the current campaign, while investigating a mysterious murdering stowaway aboard a ship, the players wanted to know where a specific IDEnt card is used when it is next used. I told them that, since the ship systems did not feature that function, it is not possible unless the constantly check the datalogs them selves. So the Tech Priest asked if he could create a subroutine that would do it for them. Since it's not that difficult of a task for a Tech Priest, I gave him a Routine Logics test to divise the subroutine, Easy Tech-Use test to write the subroutine and a Challenging Tech-Use test to actually implement the routine and soothe it over with the cogitator's machine spirit. Each of the tests was had a set duration with every degree of success making it take about 10% less. Also, the tests were taken in secret since, a failed test was retriable unless it was failed by 2 or more degrees, which would translate into the Tech Preist thinking he made a good job while, in actuality, doing nothing . Now, if the Tech Preist was in a rush, I would have upped the difficulties. Also, he was only skilled with Logics and Tech-Use, and since he was not pressed for time, were he more skilled with either of them, I would have offered him to waive a test all together for a prolonged duration (where appliable, to avoid unecessary rolling, I tend to use a house rule saying that if you can retry and you have more than 80% [or 90%, depending on what degrees of faliure translate into] chance of success and can take your time it's an automatic success). Lastly, if he, for instance, didn't have the Logics skill to begin with, I would have made the devising and writing the subroutine a single harder Tech Use test. Oddly enough, the Tech Preist managed to pull it all off on his first try, and in record time Now, I it may seem I'm kinda meticulous but my players love details. Also, this is a situation I actually expected and planned for in advance so it wasn't off the top of my head In any case, as I previously stated, I tend to use several skill tests, those generally being Tech-Use, Logics, Security and/or Common Lore (Tech) (plus any number of other skills, ranging from Cyphers to Scolastic Lore, related to the problem in hand), when ever it comes to hacking, reprograming, rewiring and similar complex actions. Anyhow, hope ay of this helps.
×
×
  • Create New...