Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About IdOfEntity

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Alabama, United States
  1. I understand that the Imperial Creed is the backbone of Imperial Society, and that most citizens base their decisions on it. There are measures in place to punish those who go against it. Excoriation, Flaggelation, Execution, etc. These are enforced by the Ecclesiarchy. These are the methods they have at their disposal. They don't have the ability to corrupt. 1) Who is deciding which Imperial Citizens are going to be afflicted with Corruption? 2) What is the delivery method for said Corruption? The Emperor isn't casting affliction for Heresy. The Ecclesiarchy certainly isn't. A Daemon of Chaos isn't choosing to enforce the credo of the Imperium. In your vision of Corruption someone has to be the judge, jury, and executioner to be casting Corruption around. Who are these hapless fools "inviting corruption" from? You mention humans who have joined the Tau are branded heretics. Do you believe they have a higher degree of physical corruption than a faithful regiment? There's no evidence this is true. None. Notice how for all of the negative side effects of Slaught the game developers chose not to mention a thing about Corruption. Who or what is determining if the Confessor was wrong? In his holy quarters he is randomly growing a third arm with pincers on it for a decision he authorized two weeks ago? Are you seriously suggesting that the Imperial Creed takes precedence over a writ signed by the Emperor himself? Dude…? Your arguments are not supported by RAW or RAI. What are you using to support your view?
  2. @Seqvirin Consorting with Xenos leads to corruption? So having a philosophical discussion with one of the Water Caste of the Tau would lead to your disfigurement? Having a respectful conversation with a species that has virtually no warp presence is a path to a vile and twisted body? I believe you may have had a bit too much of the Ecclesiarchial Kool-Aid, sir. Here's the biggest issue: 1) Morality is subjective, not objective. 2) In-game mechanics should be based on objective measurements in order to be consistent and fair. The game developers created a metric called Corruption Points that ties directly to physical malformation of the body, and provided a few very specific scenarios in which corruption is attained. I'll spend some time tonight checking, but I'm pretty sure there were specific scenarios that caused the accumulation of corruption. Should a purveyor and imbiber of slaught receive more corruption points than Warmaster Maccaroth sending 20,000 ill-prepared men to their deaths in order to stymie the political and military might of one of his upstart suboordinates? Should a guardsman sharing water with the Eldar Guardian who just assisted him in slaying a handful of Orc receive corruption, but the Confessor who orders the purge of a thousand workers for little more than suspicion is immune to the corruption? Is a Rogue Trader who has a writ signed by the Emperor himself immune to the effects of corruption for as long as he holds the writ? What you are arguing for is to invoke the game mechanic of corruption points based on adhering to the edicts of a religion revering an Emperor that did not give a flying hoot for religion in the first place. If the God-Emperor did not care for gods, religion, or any of that nonsense to begin with…what is enforcing this corruption on citizens? Are you implying that the Ecclesiarchy is inflicting affliction? You're invoking the same kind of superstitious nonsense that the Ecclesiarchy preaches, but you're doing it to explain a game mechanic.
  3. My take: (tl; dr's skip to the summary) Corruption is the genetic malformation of an entity. It is the distortion of the body further away from what is considered healthy and ideal. Warp energy is to Corruption as Gamma Radiation is to Tumors. Some tumors are small, benign, and not easily detected. Corruption can be as such. Corruption is only accumulated from exposure to warp energy, and is not in and of itself an indication of malfeasance of the soul. Those who purposely seek out, bargain with, and manipulate the powers of chaos are going to be exposed to more warp energy than the average Imperial Citizen, and generally will show more corruption for it. They have exposed themselves by choice, and as a side effect have physiologically suffered. In this instance their lack of moral character has led to their physical corruption. That does not mean an Imperial Citizen who has been exposed to warp energy and suffered a malignancy is a Heretic, but there is a correlation. Why should the Ecclesiarchy sift through the innocent and the guilty when they can purge all and ensure the guilt are slaughtered? The danger with Forbidden Lore is that an Acolyte who seeks it out is either exposing themselves to artifacts that may likely have been exposed, or are a source of, warp energy. It is the danger of the profession that as you begin to investigate, learn, and accumulate knowledge that involves the manipulation of the warp that you would inadvertently expose yourself to it. You may have impeccable moral character, but you are still twisting your physiology from the exposure. Summary: 1) Corruption is only a physical manifestation in the body. 2) Heresy involving Chaos leads often leads to corruption, but corruption is not evidence of Heresy. Not that the Ecclesiarchy cares. 3) Acquiring knowledge of Forbidden Lore: Warp, and the like, is Russian Roulette. Eventually you will get burned despite good/bad intentions.
  4. vogue69 said: wow **** just got real with cleanse & purify Very much so. An acolyte with a flamer and associated talents can make a low Ag NPC's life very short. Even high Ag NPC's have to be wary in confined quarters since they'll be deprived of that dodge attempt. And any NPC using a weapon that needs to be braced (sans Bulging Biceps) makes a great target as well. And we all know what energy weapons can do to a sufficiently cooked NPC's ammunition, right? Gibbets ensue.
  5. We've only had to deal with this a couple of times, because Disarm mostly sucks. The following are our groups houserules: 1) Picking up a weapon, or pulling an elevator lever, or whatever is movement. You may not have moved in meters, but you've moved. If you did it while engaged in melee you will still provoke an attack. 2) Additional degrees of success involved in your WS test you can propel the opponents weapon in a random direction via scatter. Each degree gives one additional meter. 3) While you may have spent your entire turn disarming your opponent of their monstrous weapon of doom, your fellow acolytes, or anyone, may grab it. This has led one player to smack a chainsword out of a heretics hand, only to have it be picked up by another heretic lacking the training but reacting very badly to a fear/shock test.
  6. I don't recall seeing a transmission encrypter in the books, though I admit I don't own Lathe Worlds yet. But… I think you mean a 40k Vocoder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocoder Simply call it a Voxcoder.
  7. Alexel has the right of it, in my opinion. For the big setting errors it's best to bring it up after a session, and privately. Most importantly, do not sweat the small stuff. Note: most of the canon that 40k enthusiasts get worked up over is small stuff. If your GM describes the guardsmen from Krieg wearing faded orange trenchcoats, then in this campaign just accept the fact that they have faded orange trenchcoats. If your GM doesn't understand that a stasis field fixed in an absolute position is unworkable then just let it slide and don't exploit his lack of understanding concerning time and space paradoxes. If your GM insists that the Ultramarines became a traitor chapter during the Horus Heresy, and that they are in fact the dreaded Khorne Berzerkers…feel free to correct that. (politely) Lastly, Exterminatus = Inquisitorial Failure (in my opinion) If an Inquisitor did not throw every available resource at reclaiming a habitable planet, a non-renewable resource, from a Heretic then they had best have a damnably good reason for it. Only if the foe is so fearsome that the Inquisitor, with the assistance of other Inquisitors, cannot expel this threat from a planet should an Exterminatus be ordered. Even then the Inquisitor will have to answer for why they couldn't prevent the threat from rising. They would have to work hard to prove they were not negligent. Especially so if they had any previous knowledge of the threat.
  8. Cymbel said: Or here is another thing, have the captain be a Rogue Trader friend to the Inquisitor, add an interesting NPC to your game! This, or something like it. Void Ship game mechanic always seemed better suited for the game Rogue Trader, thematically speaking. It certainly depends on the gaming group, but the additional layer and depth from customizing an Inquisitorial vessel seems to draw focus away from immediate drama and tension. Over-customization bogs down a group in game mechanics while losing the theme. Do you want your Acolytes to be quibbling over what customizations they can bring to a vessel, or do you want them to come up with creative solutions to the dark and disturbing dillemas you throw their way? The best sessions I've been in have been sessions of improvised reaction on the part of players with minimal planning. Being prepared for everything strips a game of the dire stakes, preventing you from spending more time on problems and drama of your campaign such as the pathological spread of suicides within the Ecclesiarchy.
  9. Darth Smeg said: FieserMoep said: We use that rule too. As far as I know this is also how it is handled in later publications like Black Crusade that are basicaly some "updated" DH rules. And in my opinion that makes much more sense. I had missed that change. But for some reason it was changed back to it's original version in Only War. By design or mistake, I do not know. I think it makes sense that it works both ways, after all an impact is an impact, regardless of which side has the highest momentum. The Black Library books I've read have been pretty clear that the power field on a power sword doesn't require momentum to destroy. Proximity is enough. Are Power Fists depicted otherwise? (Sorry for the Threadjack for this question)
  10. Darth Smeg said: IdOfEntity said: Yet some shields are used as defensive weapons for parrying, and thus could be broken by a power field. It's the other way around, it is when a weapon is parried by a power weapon that it might be destroyed. Not when you parry a power weapon. You would have to actively attack with your shield in order to risk having it parried and destroyed. Considering the penalites most people get for attacking with Defensive weapons, this is not likely to happen. Ah, I see our mistake. We had been playing it as parrying or parried by a power weapon.
  11. Darth Smeg said: As the characters hit Rank 9, we reject Ascension and let these characters instead use all branches of their career trees. You can find my House rules here, and I welcome comments, suggestions and criticism. Emphasis mine. This is the single best suggestion I have seen as an alternative to Ascension, and my group loves it. We all have wracked ourselves in anxiety for neglecting to take skills or talents that compete for attention. We build our characters a certain way and feel that we have to skimp on more fluff related advances in order to be as potent of acolytes as possible. This suggestion removed the pressure to min/max acolytes as we feel that with time we'll get to where we want to be, and it heads off the nastiness of power balance issues we see in Ascension. Ave Imperator for that!
  12. Darth Smeg said: Shields (even the ones that provide cover) are classified as weapons, and there are no rules about damaging weapons. The only really wierd and unexplainable reference is the description of Lathe Blade upgrades in the Inquisitors Handbook, where they state that " A Lathe blade cannot be destroyed by the effects of a power field and counts as having an Armour value of 25 if directly attacked." But there are no rules for attacking weapons, so it makes little sense. Yet some shields are used as defensive weapons for parrying, and thus could be broken by a power field. Others contribute directly to AP, and do not act as a defensive weapon. It brings to mind your previous post concerning House Rules on shields. Shields need to be cleaned up in the errata.
  13. Darth Smeg said: I find the Errata to Corpus Conversion too harsh. When it first came out, I apllauded the change, as the pre-errata version was much too powerful to my tastes. But we've played the game for years now, and nobody ever uses it. Even when they were faced with Demons and Life-or-Death situations. People would rather burn Fate Points, it seems, than suffer PERMANENT Toughness loss. So I want to change it. Again. My suggestion is thus: The Errata for this talent (Errata, p7) is replaced by the following addition: “The damage taken to fuel your powers this way cannot be treated with psychic or ordinary healing, nor will cybernetics or other infusions speed the slow and natural healing of these wounds” Suggestions? Thoughts? Have you played with Corpus Conversion working differently? Do tell! Truth be told, Corpus Conversion was used only rarely by any psykers in my group. The two times it was used was in a non-combat situation. (Telepathy) Pre-Errata it was ripe for abuse, but for some reason most of the player's avoided it. Risk averse player's I suppose. Post-Errata makes Corpus Conversion a total write-off. No one purchases it. I might as well take a black marker to the book and mark it out. Your solution is elegant. The talent might get 1 or 2 uses per session. I approve. I had always considered making the power inflict levels of fatigue that could not be replenished except by natural rest. That path seems too lenient though.
  14. Inquisitors are going to be as varied as all of the gamemasters on here. Some would consider any quibbling over orders grounds for execution. Others would consider less severe options. Are they expected to improvise? Act without direct supervision? Are the situations moral gray areas, or clear cut violations of Imperial Creed? Are they only expected to exercise their authority as Acolytes over direct Ordo _____ concerns? The action on the part of the Inquisitor, Interrogator, or even fellow Acolyte might be as light as a friendly reminder, as controlled as a stern PMI dressing down. (Poor Man's Infantry) It could be as harsh as "Wall-to-Wall" counseling. As vindictive as a month spent under the less than tender graces of the Ecclesiarchy. As prudent as interrogation and imprisonment on the suspicion of being a sympathizer? I assume this is a game you'd like to keep going, so a Bolt Shell to the brainpan is a really bad way to instill "discipline" in the psyker. It might be true to character, but it's horrible for a campaign. Do not execute.
  15. I have to side with Smeg on this one. The assassin's dodge is a great boon, but you are limited by needing to use a reaction. A guardsman outfitted with good armor, more wounds, and cheap toughness advances is more likely to survive a horde of enemies. A man wielding a Grenade Launcher is also a higher priority target than someone wielding a hunting rifle, and thus draw 'aggro' away from the rest of the party.
  • Create New...