Jump to content

Frankie

Members
  • Content Count

    193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Frankie

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    FL
  1. HappyDaze said: Frankie said: HappyDaze said: Read the bieginning of the Regiment Creation rules in the Core Rulebook. it explains that they are merely guidelines and can be altered or ignored as the the GM and players - or in this case the authors for the canon regiments - desire. It's intended to be much more loosely applied than many players and GMs may be comfortable with from FFG's products (where rules are usually quite strict). That feels like a cop-out to me. Part of the appeal is being able to create your favorite canonical or made up IG Regiment, and it's really disappointing to see they couldn't flex the system to make it possible. If you need erratta or a ton of houserules to 'fix' something than it gets a bit silly. Well, since they built the 'flex' in from the beginning by saying that the rules should be adjusted to fit the needs of GM and group (that's in the book, so it's not a houserule), I'm not sure how this would be seen as a failure. No fixed system is going to give infinite versatilty, so they allowed for wiggle room outside the lines. That's not a cop-out in my eyes; that's being realistic about the limitations of a fixed menu system. All game systems can be houseruled, so it doesn't really change anything. Plenty of RPGs talk about Rule Zero and how you shouldn't be dogmatic about the rules, but modify them to fit the desires of your group. Part of the point of game design is to make a solid system. It's like saying D&D 3.5E isn't unbalanced just because you can make houserules concerning Wizards, so that makes it okay that Wizards are OP RAW. And, infinite versatility? Who says anything about infinite versatility? If you're making a regiment creation system, then you should really make mold it around the fact you can make the canon regiments, rather than making a generic system, realizing they can't be made RAW and then cheating. Hell, I haven't yet given the book a solid read yet, but just looking at Steel Legion, DKOK & Attilans? FFG wouldn't completely break the system by somehow including those unique traits in it. Blood Pact, I don't think I'm exaggerating or saying I'm never going to buy another book again. That doesn't change the fact they clearly didn't have an editor look through the book long enough and some things are unbalanced or referenced in the book but not even there.
  2. venkelos said: I certainly can't claim to be any expert, but having flipped through the book, I do like what I saw. First, I can't imagine a game of IG without the other guys/girls that make the soldiers succeed. Certainly, the implementation of Ogryns, Psykers, and Tech-Priests could require some extra attention from the GM, but if they just weren't there, the game would blow; I don't roleplay to play the blandest guy I can make. That isn't to say that playing a run-of-the-mill Guardsman couldn't be fun and rewarding (I could enjoy the Cadian Sergeant or HG), but if I am not restricted, I'd be playing the Cadian Psyker, because I like Psykers, and some of the plot/interaction opportunities that could bring (if I played DW, I'd likely be a Librarian, or Techmarine, just the same, and that's a game that suffers, in my opinion, for ONLY letting you play Space Marines; sad when that's a bad thing, huh?). Yeah. You remind me of some people who deliberately avoid playing humans in fantasy settings, since it just sounds mundane. Personally? I tend to enjoy playing "Normals". Only War appeals to me not for the Ratlings, Ogryns, Psykers, Priests or Tech-Priests, but the fact you can play Imperial Guardsman. HappyDaze said:Read the bieginning of the Regiment Creation rules in the Core Rulebook. it explains that they are merely guidelines and can be altered or ignored as the the GM and players - or in this case the authors for the canon regiments - desire. It's intended to be much more loosely applied than many players and GMs may be comfortable with from FFG's products (where rules are usually quite strict). That feels like a cop-out to me. Part of the appeal is being able to create your favorite canonical or made up IG Regiment, and it's really disappointing to see they couldn't flex the system to make it possible. If you need erratta or a ton of houserules to 'fix' something than it gets a bit silly.
  3. +2 Fellowship for 2pts isn't worth it at all IMO.
  4. Do you use Simple weapons and don't want to be penalized just because you want to play an autogun-using regiment? If so, just make it so Average SP weapons become Common and Las weapons of Common availability become Average. And, just make it free.
  5. One thing I liked about the OW Beta was its small memory size, which made it great for a quick scroll. How about when we buy a game off say, DriveThru RPG we get the normal version and low-res one?
  6. I assume you didnt change the OW pysker powers, and they're balanced against the ones you made? Would you mind if I used any of your material for my own, non-40k homebrew game?
  7. https://docs.google.com/document/d/16NyZZf6cFgLYtIkqovAqmoetEn2l-OKGWgfhJwcenSM/edit Has Lucius-pattern lasguns, along with not-sh*tty Laslocks for 17th-19th century regiments. No idea how tallarn lasguns work or I'd try statting them. Lucius Pattern/No. 98 Lasgun; Basic, 120m, S/-/-, 1d10+4E, Pen 1, Clip 25; Reliable, 4kg; Common
  8. Speaking of which, or is it that with the way it currently works, is casting a more powerful psyker power easier than a weaker one?
  9. What do you think about the BC/OW RF compared to the DH version? I'm a bit mixed because it removes those awesome moments when your lowly character kills a Lictor in one hit through sheer luck. 1d5 temporary crit is less silly, but a lot less impressive.
  10. Well, each person would have to burn the fate. Once that fate is gone, it's gone. There's a huge difference between having 1-2 fate and 3-4 fate in terms of spending.
  11. Variable Settings is a big reason to have the large clip sizes. Secondly, have them keep track of ammo and not have it magically replenish after a scene. After one or two battles, they"ll be hoping to return to base or for a supply drop/wagon to come by. Yes, you can recharge your chargepacks by throwing them in the fire, but you damage the chargepacks and may not necessarily have the chance to charge them.
  12. If you're asking about mechanics, then I get a feeling you didn't bother reading the mechanics chapters of the book. That will be a very nasty surprise for the rest of the group when you slow down the game exponentially. I'd read the book and have the GMscreen either on hand (if IRL) or the PDF always open during sessions.
  13. Suppressive Fire doesn't really justify it, since Stub Autos are inferior in just about every other way, and frankly, SF isn't exactly impressive. Lasguns get variable settings. At this point I'd say they're roughly equal. Fluff is still a really bad argument choice if autoguns are the standard weapon in your regiment. Or if the nearby forgeworld the munitorium supplies you through produces autoguns over lasguns for whatever reason. And believe me, with all the generated regiments I've seen, there certainly isn't something like a 10:1 lasgun to autogun ratio. Now, does it make sense for them to be average if your main weapon is a lasgun? Sure. But not when your MW is an autogun, and everyone is taking weapon proficiencies for SP weapons over Las. When fluff doesn't stand as a valid argument for why a guard regiment should be penalized for 5-10 points, it's bad game design. Having to rely on a GM's mercy to houserule it doesn't make the system better.
  14. Yeah. It's really bad game design to force players to play in a certain way, like with the autogun being expensive for no reason other than fluff (which doesn't work as an argument anyway since the autogun would be their standard weapon, not a secondary weapon in a lasgun-wielding regiment)
  15. Really, saying the hat is armored, or is laced with it on the inside of the hat has it make sense mechanically and IC. Just have any helmet you have stand in for the hat's AP.
×
×
  • Create New...