Jump to content

CaptainTrek

Members
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CaptainTrek

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Victoria, Australia
  1. Thanks, guys. For the particular character I'm building, losing my Dodge/Parry doesn't bother me, since he is relying on his Toughness, armour and subskin armour to soak up incoming fire.
  2. On the tabletop, the Conqueror Cannon has S7 and AP4 as opposed to S8 and AP3. Shouldn't this be reflected in the cannon's OW stats? Maybe 3d10+8 Pen 6 like the Autocannon (which on the tabletop is also S7 Pen 4)? I do like the bonus to firing on the move, though. As for the Exterminator, considering that the Heavy Bolter and Multilaser (both Heavy 3 on the tabletop) full auto for 6 and 5, respectively, you could quite happily make the Exterminator's cannon full-auto for 10. In my experience, the Storm quality is rather blisteringly overpowered (Seriously, a storm bolter is WAY more dangerous than a heavy bolter in my group's experience), so S/5/10 Twin-Linked seems like a nice potential alternative to S/2/5 Twin-Linked and Storm. But that's just me. Incidentally, we could also use stats for the Executioner, Eradicator, Punisher and Annihilator. The Annihilator is easy enough... just a lascannon with a doubled clip an Twin-Linked... and the Executioner could use the normal Plasma Cannon statblock with S/2/4, S/3/5 or something to that effect, but I'm not sure what one would do with the Eradicator and Punisher. The Punisher is probably one case where the Storm quality would be appropriate, if nothing else... Maybe -/-/10, 2d10+5 Pen 0, Storm and Twin-Linked? Oh and we could use stats for the Melta Cannon on the Devildog and the Chem Cannon on the Banewolf as well...
  3. Hey guys Welp, I'm considering building an offensively-minded Engineseer for an upcoming Only War game, and I noticed several types of mechadendrite can eat the character's Reaction for the turn in order to make an attack. Simple question, really, one that is, in fact, right there in the topic title... does an attack made in this way count against the one attack action a character is allowed to make during the turn or does it not?
  4. With regards to that commander from near the start of the thread who supposedly had 90+ Toughness, if it weren't for when those posts were made I'd have suspected the GM for this game was stupid enough to allow the Hammer of the Emperor RAW about gaining free +5s to characteristics if you don't take an advanced specialisation to stand unmodified. As it stands I can only imagine that something went seriously astray with the maths being done over there... Anyways, I know this isn't going to sound very grimdark, but I just thought I'd quickly point out one particular trope that goes a long way not only to explaining humans who can heavily blunt incoming autogun fire on the back of their TB alone, but virtually all the patently ridiculous things a cleverly built Only War character can do in general... http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperpower Granted, this isn't exactly realistic, but breathing "Warhammer 40K" and "realism" in the same sentence is a recipe for frustration and disaster at the very outset. By my estimation, if you're a normal human, having Charles Atlas Superpowers is virtually a requirement to become highly successful in the mould of Creed, Cain, Straken, Marbo or countless others, and, more importantly, to actually survive such an ascension to fame and success. After all, for every Sly Marbo there are thousands of others who died trying to be that badass... From a narrative standpoint, in many stories there comes a point where the heroes, especially ones with CASPs, start to find themselves largely unthreatened by the mooks of the opposition (and indeed, it's worth noting that at the end of the day, only mooks will find themselves stonewalled by high TB characters). Having an extremely high TB is simply one way of representing this numerically. Having a ridiculously high Agility, +30 Dodge and Step Aside would be another. From a fluff standpoint, it's the same thing... the hero is so badass that the mooks simply fail, for whatever reason, to do any damage when they engage him. This can represent everything from the character being able to dodge just enough that attacks that "hit" within the in-game mechanics only grazed him, to the big badass being so intimidating to look at or having such a reputation that it throws off the attackers' aim. If Wounds/HPs can represent luck, skill, and a hundred other things that help prevent the taking of lethal wounds, why can TB not also? So yeah, I feel that absolute realism is unnecessary and from a narrative point of view, high level heroes being able to shrug off the attacks of mooks in whatever way they do so is perfectly fine. That's just my view. :3
  5. As the question in the title posits, my group is wondering exactly how long it might take to give a weapon a Trigger Adjustment or a Quick Release or what have you. I'm sorry I don't have a whole lot to fill this opening post up with, but that's really about all there is to it. Our group wants to make customisations, but doesn't have a great deal of time to work with and so we're simply wondering how long it would take to make the modifications…
  6. My group went in the exact opposite direction; making Comrades LESS abstracted. To facilitate this, we established the following rules: 1: Specialisations that get Comrades get them as normal. 2: A Comrade is a fully functional character controlled by the player of the PC to whom the Cohort is assigned, but they do not use the normal character creation rules. Instead, every Comrade is created as follows: 2a: Cohorts have 30 in every attribute. One or two attribute may be increased to 35 (you cannot increase one attribute to 40 instead), at the cost of reducing two other attributes to 25 (you cannot increase one attribute to 20 instead). For simplicity, Cohorts do not apply any modifiers to their attributes that would otherwise be provided by the regiment, though players as an optional rule may agree to apply these adjustments if they see fit. 2b: Each Cohort has all of that regiment's standard issue gear, and all Skills and Talents that the regiment automatically provides. Each Cohort may then be assigned three additional Skills trained at "Known" level of the player's choice, though these Skills cannot be Skills that have the "Investigation" or "Interaction" descriptors without specific GM approval. 2c: Each Comrade has 10 wounds and 0 Fate Points. 3: Cohorts are controlled as PCs as normal and treated as PCs for all purposes such as being targeted in combat. The Cohesion rules may, as an optional rule, still be applied but with the following caveats: 3a: Regardless of whether they are in Cohesion or not, for simplicity Comrades always act on the PC's Initiative count. (this rule applies even if Cohesion rules are not otherwise being used) As an optinal rule, this rule may be ignored. 3b: Provided they are in Cohesion with their PC, Comrades also share the PC's results on all Fear and Pinning tests, including any subsequent rolls on the Shock table in the case of Fear tests. As an optinal rule, players may be allowed, after all relevant rolls have been completed for the PC, to allow the Comrade then to roll on their own Willpower score in an effort to get a better result than the PC did (albeit at the risk of getting a worse result in the case of Fear tests). This is to represent that once, every-so-often, an ordinary Guardsman may prove able to rise above the norm and demonstrate the same sort of potential that the PCs themselves demonstrated back when they were in the Comrade's place. 3c: PCs may use (and Comrades benefit from) Orders, but the Take Cover! order no longer exists for obvious reasons. Additionally, enemies are not restricted from specifically targeting Comrades if they so choose, though a doubles attack roll against a PC still hits the Comrade instead provided if it is in Cohesion. Also, if a PC takes any movement that requires a Full Action, a Comrade in Cohesion must also take a Full action to avoid odd situations such as a Comrade sprinting over 20 metres and then firing off an automatic volley from his lasrifle all on the same turn. 3d: Comrades acquire Insanity and Corruption points the same way they do in the core rules, merely expiring if they take too many points at once rather than tracking every individual point. Players may choose, as an optinal rule, to instead track Insanity and Corruption points for Comrades the same way they are tracked for PCs.
  7. KommissarK said: Finally, don't forget that the number of degrees of success on an attack can replace the value on one of the dice rolled. So if you got 7 degrees of success, but rolled a 2 on the damage, you actually got a 7, not a 2. Its in the rules, look it up. Its probably in the top 10 of least known rules in the system, but quite effective with the Accurate weapons. You've got me intrigued now… What rules would you say round out the top ten?
  8. A regiment doesn't need to spend points simply to have Favoured Weapons. Indeed, all regiments have (chosen at regiment creation) a basic weapon that is considered Favoured, and likewise for a heavy weapon. You can spent kit points to give an example of the regiment's Favoured basic (and/or Favoured heavy) as standard kit for a squad. This will ensure the PCs have an example of said Favoured weapon regardless of what specialisations the players are playing, and fluff-wise might indicate that this particular regiment considers the Favoured weapon in question so important that they go the extra mile to ensure that every squad has one. Ordinarily, the only way to get access to Favoured weapons outside of requisitioning them is to play as a Weapon Specialist (who can select the regiments Favoured basic weapon as part of his specialist equippment) or a Heavy Gunner (who can do likewise with the regiment's Favoured heavy).
  9. I'd say S/2/- would be reasonable.
  10. The Russian said: Kriegers have Medics, they call them Quartermasters and they heal who they can, execute those you can't be saved, and collect their gear. In a Death Korps game I would disallow abhumans… maybe psykers and/or enginseers (maybe). I don't think that restrictions are mentioned, but the GM has the final say, at least I would think. I for one can't see any reason why the Kriegers wouldn't get Mechanicus support. Psykers I can definitely see them potentially not having, though…
  11. Imperial Navy I'd say should be a seperate book all by itself (the "Battlefleet Koronus" of OW, if you like), and additional archetypes beyond the ones that have already been presented could be great for OW's answer to the Inquisitor's Handbook/Into the Storm. I do, however, agree with what some people have been saying that Valkyries should absolutely be in the core book if drop-troopers are, though the problem with that is that it would require an entire new section on aerial combat and such, so it might even be better to strip drop-troopers out of the core book and hold them back until OW's IH/ItS alike comes out. Perhaps the space that is freed up by doing so (one space opens up in "regiment type" and not having the Elysian Drop Troopers sample regiment frees up an entire page) could be spent adding in rules for roughriders as people have suggested. As they've pointed out, hunting lances are already in, so why not the people who would use them? Rules for horses, Tauros and Venators couldn't possibly take up more than a page. Oh and the core needs listings for how much ammo various vehicles can carry for their weapons, but I've talked enough about core already in this thread ostensibly about stuff that should come AFTER core… Probably one of the obvious ones is a bestiary-style book. The OW bestiary should provide GMs with infomation about each of the 'main' enemy 40K armies (Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Chaos, Necrons, Orks and Tyranids?) operates and how they're organised in addition to simply listing what forces they can deploy. It ought to give GMs ideas about how each enemy behaves as an overall fighting force, which will in turn help them determine what kinds of forces the players might realistically end up facing in a given part of the warzone.
  12. Solarisjock said: I am house ruling it back in, and all my players agree that it is silly that a set of steel plate less then a 1/4" thick is better at stopping a lasbolt then 41st millennium las bolts, i am also debating on if the weapons with the primitive quality should retain their max damage cap against it, since that is what the armor was designed to go against. I'd say just go back to the original rules (I.E. Modern weapons are against half a primitive armour's AP, primitive weapons are against double a modern armour's AP). They were a helluva lot less clunky and a helluva lot more realistic than the current system, and they are more balanced as well because the OW version of Primitive has the potentiall unbalancing side-effect of causing weapons with the quality to deal their maximum damage far more often than those without.
  13. If you'd be willing to bend the rules enough to allow in equippment from other books, it does bare worth mentioning that Sororitas Powered Armour is listed in Blood of Martyrs as Very Rare, so you could substitute it for the carapace armour you were otherwise going to give them. Heh; now I want to see you do Adeptus Arbites riot police using OW regiment creation. XD
  14. I'm not sure how FFG managed to miss this, but in the final battle of Against the Savages, the list of enemy forces doesn't list any Wartrakks despite an unspecified number of them being talked about in the subsequent paragraphs, with the adventure specifing that the 'trakks will attempt to blow through the walls of the compound the PCs are defending (with Rokkitt Launchas, presumably, though it doesn't point out anywhere that GMs should probably make sure they've armed the 'trakks with this weapon), and that the Orks' Big Mek is riding on one of the 'trakks (wait, riding? Where? Is he driving? Shooting? Just cramming himself in there in alongside the driver and gunner?)… Yeah… I think this stuff needs clarification. And while I'm complaining it would also help if the adventure listed how much damage (or, at least, how many penetrating hits) are required on the compound walls before they fall…
  15. Considering that a Warbike's armour is 18, 18, 14, I think 12 on all sides is WAY too low. 20 on all sides is perfectly reasonable. You really shouldn't be able to damage the thing with a lasgun and indeed, on the table top something like a Warbuggy or Sentinal is just out of reach of the maximum damage potential of a lasgun (Strength 3 + 6 on the d6 vs their armour on all sides of 10), just as an armour 20 vehicle is just outside of the maximum damage potential of an overcharged lasgun (max 15 damage and 2 Pen vs armour 20, so 3 points short).
×
×
  • Create New...