Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About seanpp

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    San Francisco, California, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

639 profile views
  1. The NPC running past the door was an assumption of the example, or else the situation under discussion doesn't occur and there's nothing to discuss. No, not sure what I wrote that gave that impression, but I haven't addressed "stopping" the NPC at the door - only the ambushing PC attacking them. In effect, however, as long as we're talking about the PC personally physically stopping them as the target uses a Maneuver to move through the doorway - it'd be a similar situation. Whether the ambushing PC wants to make a skill check to stop the target, or to attack the target - until the target's Turn concludes, RAW doesn't let the PC act to interfere. Sure, the PC could simply close the door before the target got there - but that has nothing to do with our subject matter, which is very specific. Anyway, my example was never stopping the target, it was to ambush them as they came through the door. Yes indeed, the Star Wars system allows for a good deal of flexibility, but it's not unlimited, of course. One small example, is there's a hard cap of two Maneuvers per Turn - if a GM allows more than that, that's not RAW, there's no flexibility allowed there. However, in the area of using Advantages/Threats there's all sorts of flexibility - and creativity is heartily encouraged. So it just depends. So if a PC indicates they want to attack a target as they're in the middle of using Maneuver on their Turn walking through a door - there isn't any area of flexibility in the FFG Star Wars system that allows doing exactly that. Hence why I posted this question - and notably, hence why no one put a succinct end to this thread by simply pointing out my oversight by quoting RAW with a page number. No one in this thread has quoted from RAW on interfering with a character's Maneuver, I think, because there isn't anything to quote. Oh I wish! ;-) I was actually hoping that was the case. I like the idea for players to possibly use a closed door (of course, that assumes there's a door to close) to get around this limitation of the FFG system. Due to the target having to use a Maneuver resource to open the door, depending on the sequence of things, it could interfere with the target being able to move past the ambushing PC in a single Turn. However, that doesn't really get us past the issue of this post - that a PC shouldn't have to go through mechanical machinations to simply stand beside a door and skewer the unaware guy coming through it. There's certainly nothing wrong with your "Shadow" idea of offering characters a free Maneuver when they make a successful Stealth check; my intention wasn't to criticize it - I was simply pointing out its Pros & Cons. My first hope, was to possibly learn a way of allowing a PC to attack that target as they're coming through the door within RAW. This thread has well-confirmed that this isn't possible - all good, it's good to know I wasn't missing something. To boot, there's been good suggestions of other options - whether they be player strategies to avoid the mechanical limitation (by closing the door prior to ambush) or by various house-rule suggestions.
  2. The example of a PC dashing through a door and to one side of it in the middle of combat, to lay in wait to attack when a character comes through, is the simplest I could think of to describe this "glitch" that the system doesn't handle very well. A great many systems use Hold-Action/Overwatch to address what would otherwise be a nonsensical result of the ambushing character being frozen by the system while their target passes by and continues out-of-range. There are other examples that could be used, but this one seemed straightforward. The attacker cannot use a Maneuver or a Combat check Action, as you suggest, because it's not their Turn - as we know, this system does not permit using Maneuvers or Actions except on your own Turn (with the noted exception of the GM spending two Threats to give a foe an immediate free maneuver on the rolling character's Turn). So not able to act in any way on the foe's Turn, the attacking PC is frozen in place while the target continues past out-of-range of their melee attack. It's nonsensical because the PC is right by the door with weapon cocked and ready to go. They should be able to attack, but the mechanics of the system prevent them from doing so. Having the ambushing PC make a Stealth check to see if the target noticed their move to the side of the door, I believe, would certainly be called for - but that's not really the crux of the mechanical issue. Let's assume for the sake of our discussion that the PC succeeds on the Stealth check, because otherwise the target doesn't just come through the door, and therefore the mechanical "glitch" of the PC being frozen in place because it being another character's Turn doesn't occur. Your suggestion of a successful skill check causing the GM to permit a "shadow" move, as you describe it - it's a thought, but here's the issue with it. It should be stated that your suggestion would constitute a house-rule, not RAW. It sounds like the PC, by virtue of the successful skill check, would be receiving a free Maneuver to Engaged status with the target - which wouldn't be RAW. It's a house-rule workaround - which is fine, one of the reasons I posted is to see what hand-waving and house-ruling was undoubtedly going on out there to deal with this glitch - but it is a house-rule. If you don't grant the free Maneuver, your suggestion is actually what RAW would call for after it's frozen the ambushing PC in place. The target proceeds through the door, during which the PC is mechanically frozen and watches them go by. The target concludes their Maneuver at, say, Short range from the door and ambushing PC. The PC now simply uses his Maneuver to move to Engage and then attacks. That's fine, but there's multiple reasons that might very well be not nearly as advantageous for the ambushing attacker. For example what if the target concludes their Maneuver at Medium range from the door/PC - back among his four allies? Now your player is asking, why do I have to follow this guy back to his homies for my attack - I want to hack him right by this dang door that I was lying-in-wait next to. The other issue with this is one of resources - if the target concludes their move at Medium range to the PC, then the PC must now spend two Maneuvers to achieve Engaged status with the target (1 to move from Medium to Short, and 1 to move from Short to Engaged). And assuming the PC wants to attack as well right then, they're going to have to spend 2 strain for that second Maneuver - and no "aim" Maneuver is available now for their melee attack. In contrast, if they were allowed to attack by the door, at the worst, you necessitate them spending a Maneuver to Engage and they can burn 2 strain for an "Aim" Maneuver - and they use their Action for a Combat check. However, given the doorway guarantees where the target will be, the GM might decide that the target effectively moved to Engaged range for the PC, and thereby the PC doesn't have to spend the Maneuver to do so. All of that is moot though per RAW, because the ambushing PC is frozen in place while the target passes by. Again, this isn't a situation that's going to happen constantly - but it's also not in the "that'll never happen folder, either. There are Hold-Action/Overwatch rules throughout RPG systems for a few reasons - one of those reasons is the situation we're discussing here. Appreciate the input!
  3. There's quite a bit to unpack with the responses - I appreciate the input! Let me first reframe the question. The downside of detailed tactical combat systems are the costs of complexity (perhaps slow pace, too many rules to track, necessitates a grid map, etc.). I would offer that the downside of, let's call it, less detailed combat systems (because FFG's Star Wars is assuredly not "rules light"), are infrequent (hopefully) situations that the system doesn't handle that well. So in starting this thread, I am pointing out one of those situations - an infrequently occurring "glitch", if you will. I was hoping for two things: 1) To see if perhaps I was missing something in the rules (I've played the game a decent amount so I didn't think so - but hey, who knows) and 2) to see how various groups were handling it in their games (hand-waving it, house-ruling it, just shrugging and dealing with it per RAW, etc.). Thanks for piling in on the subject everyone! Let me briefly restate the proposed "glitch": In the middle of a combat, a PC dashes through a door and to one side - waiting for their foe to follow so as to strike them with a melee weapon. The foe goes by on their own Turn, the PC is unable to act and the foe continues onward out of range. The PC should be able to attack there, but is frozen out by the system. Obviously, one can hand-wave or house-rule, but with RAW it's a glitch. Here are, I think, some key aspects to this discussion that either myself or others have made: This "glitch" situation only occurs in the middle of a combat. A number of you have offered examples (e.g. Jedi Ronin's GM setup, syrath's hidden sniper) that are likely from the beginning of a combat - and I think the system handles those at the beginning of a combat fine. At the beginning of a combat you're going to have Vigilance checks, Perception checks and fresh Initiative rolls that inform play/explain if and why that ambush did or didn't work - that don't help in the middle of a combat (see my briefly restated example of the "glitch" immediately above). The system's unassigned initiative slots certainly helps with this overall situation, but it doesn't solve it. For some examples mentioned by others, particularly I thought Jedi Ronin's hostage/negotiation example, I think the system's unassigned initiative slots basically addresses any issue there. If the PCs want to sequence their actions, they can order the initiative slots to do that - done deal. However, this doesn't solve the glitch example I've presented above. Let me take this chance to point out that, while my stated "glitch" example above isn't going to happen constantly, it's also not in the "that'll never happen" folder, either. It's going to happen, by PCs and foes alike. The Simultaneous Approach - this is a popular one that has been mentioned by most. I would offer that I don't think this works, because for just about all our games I think the whole "it's all simultaneous" thing is very theoretical, and used rarely. If you rule that the foe, lying in wait to the side of a door, is able to strike the PC moving through that door to effectively out-of-range, because you tell them "it's all simultaneous", then you're going to have a lot of adjustments to make in combat. To wit, when the PCs use their high initiative slots to rush to cover, that cover doesn't apply until the next round because, it being all simultaneous, all attacks this round on the PCs happen while they're on their way to cover. Are any of us actually playing that way? When a foe is incapacitated or even killed early in a Round, that foe still gets to attack later in the same Round because it's all simultaneous. Are any of us playing that way? When a PC successfully leaps across a small chasm away from their melee-foes, all those melee-foes in engaged range still get to attack that Round because it's all simultaneous. The PC gets successfully hit multiple times by them and one of the hits triggers Knockdown, essentially um...preventing the leap? Now what? Simultaneous Rounds is a fun conceit but, in reality, we use the discreteness of initiative order to an overwhelming extent to decide what happens. I would suggest, that to treat a Round as truly simultaneous would add considerably more complexity to the system than adding Hold-Action/Overwatch would. I would speculate that very few of us are treating our Rounds as actually simultaneous, and is a can-of-worms best left unopened. Donovan's suggestion, to be sure, is the tried-and-true Hold-Action/Overwatch rule of countless games. The player must dedicate their Action that Round to a declared discrete trigger - using my "glitch" example above, striking the next foe that comes through that door. If the trigger doesn't occur by the same PC-slot the next Round, then that PC's Action is essentially lost. If a foe comes through that door within the Action's window - then the foe is immediately attacked, with a Combat check ensuing. Given the system's unassigned initiative slots, to this house-rule you'd have to add either: 1) this PC on the subsequent Round cannot use any initiative slot that occurs before the initiative slot they used for the Hold-Action/Overwatch, because they're still waiting by that door! 2) Or that the duration for the Hold-Action/Overwatch action is the end of the Round in which it was taken, so it's trigger-window would be less than a Round. The unattractive aspect of the first option, is it introduces an action that goes from mid-round to mid-round, which is a bit wonky in an unassigned initiative slot system. The unattractive aspect of the second option is that it leaves the "glitch" in place if the mid-combat ambush of the "glitch" example occurs near the end of a Round. To wit, in their last initiative slot a PC sets up by the door sword cocked. Early the next Round the foe comes through - but the PC's Hold-Action/Overwatch has expired with the last Round, so the foe on their Turn moves (inexplicably) to out-of-range unmolested. In summation, the responses tell me that I'm not missing anything rules-wise - it's just a small, yet meaningful, glitch in a system due to a dedication not to be too tactical. I'm not willing to turn combat, as we all know it, essentially on its head by actually treating every Round as truly simultaneous, as I described above. So what am I going to do? I have no desire for house-rules but, frankly, it seems just a little too painful to leave RAW as-is for this glitch-situation, "I know you were right by the door sword-cocked - it's a nice idea - but he just runs past you yet again." What's the least intrusive house-rule to handle it (that doesn't necessitate other house-rules)? Probably the described classic Hold-Action/Overwatch...but not sure yet.
  4. Yes, choosing your Turn Order slot might mitigate this flaw, depending on the specific situation, but it doesn't actually solve it. Your character is set up to shoot a guy after he comes into your room but before he exits it. However, the target makes its way completely through and out of the room on his turn - so no attack takes place despite the shooter ready to fire. I understand your point about all actions in a Round are "simultaneous", but I think for almost all games that's theoretical, not practical. Your target just took cover before your Turn and now you're shooting at him in the same Round. If it's simultaneous he shouldn't have cover because he didn't get there until the end of his turn, and you should be shooting at him while he's on his way - but nobody plays that way. If he's in cover when your Turn begins, then he has cover - no real simultaneous about it. So a hard application of the simultaneous actions in a Round would be a huge adjustment for most games. If your target is out of the room by the time your turn begins - he's gone and you can't shoot him. I think the main mitigating factor is that, most of the time, the kind of ambush attack I'm speaking of starts a combat, rather than happens in the middle of a combat. This problem doesn't arise if the ambush starts the conflict. However, if your player tells you during combat that he dashes out a door and waits for his foe to come through to hit him with his lightsaber - the player's not going to be happy when you tell them his foe just went right on by. Appreciate the response.
  5. How is it handled mechanically when during combat (so Tactical time), a character wishes to, say, attack the next character through a door? They lie in wait for that next person to walk through. There's no "Hold Action" action or "Overwatch" action, and I can't find anything in the system to address this. Since there's no way to act in the middle of another character's turn (with the exception of 2 Threats being spent to provide a foe an immediate free maneuver), the target could come through that door and continue clean out of that room without the attack ever taking place.
  6. This is certainly good input for the subject SEApoc...however, I don't think it's a smoking gun. If the designers intended for the GM to set the Difficulty for Initiative rolls, in the Combat section where establishing Initiative is explained, would you expect them to say "To determine the Initiative order, each Player Character and NPC makes a Simple (-) Cool or Vigilance check"? There's maybe a half dozen permutations of the ways the designers could have expressed that GMs will set Initiative Difficulty levels - but that's just not what they said...at all. They instructed that a Simple Difficulty is used. Back at you with Chapter 3 :-P --- on pg 124 under Perception Skill it says, "A character who is unprepared for a trap or an ambush may have an opportunity to make a Perception check to avoid being surprised." A full reading of Perception and Vigilance skills makes clear that Perception is used "...for an active attempt to study his surroundings. This is how a character notices concealed or inconspicuous signs of danger or other items of significance when actively seeking them out" (emphasis mine), while Vigilance says, "Sometimes a character may have a chance to notice small but important details in his surroundings while not specifically looking for them." (Again, emphasis mine.) So if the PCs state they're looking for an ambush, or even just state they're being wary of any nonsense while traversing that area, then that "active attempt" would use a Perception check to spot the ambush. If they're just going about their business none-the-wiser, then a Vigilance check is used. The smoking gun part, is that Perception is never used for Initiative rolls. With that being the case, how do all these pieces fit together? I would assert here's what RAW has given us: If characters who are unprepared for a trap or ambush are making an active attempt to study their surroundings, then a Perception check is used to "avoid being surprised". To determine if characters are prepared for an ambush when they are not actively looking for trouble, then a Vigilance check is used. There's every reason to think that Difficulty levels are used for these Perception and Vigilance checks, including that it specifically states so under the Vigilance skill in regards to spotting ambushes. Initiative rolls use Simple Difficulty. I think those pieces make at least some of this pretty clear. Characters make either a Perception or Vigilance check to see if they detect the ambush. Then the Initiative roll uses Simple Difficulty. What I do not believe is clear, is how the results of those Perception/Vigilance checks are manifested in the Simple Initiative rolls. I can think of three possibilities: Individual characters who failed their Perception/Vigilance check do not act in the first Round. Characters who made their checks do act in the first Round. If anyone in the attacked group makes their Perception/Vigilance check (or if the GM only allows them one group roll), then none are surprised and all Initiative dice pools are unmodified. If no one made their Perception/Vigilance check (or if the group check failed), then no one acts in the first Round. Characters who failed their Perception/Vigilance checks get Setback dice, while characters who succeeded at those checks roll Initiative unmodified. You can get as complex with this one as one likes. Characters with failed Perception/Vigilance checks gets one Setback die. Threat can be spent on additional Setback dice, or Threat can be spent to force an immediate Fear check. Maybe a Despair forces an immediate Fear check either with upgraded Difficulty or that gives the character Conflict. I don't believe RAW ever mentions anything about a Surprise Round or characters not acting in the first Round - so I don't think options #1 & 2 fit within RAW. However, option #3 fits within RAW just fine. You can have Simple Initiative Rolls but get as jiggy as you want with Boost/Setback dice. I reserve the right to keep thinking about this & perusing the book, but I think option #3 is where I am going.
  7. I agree that setting different Difficulties for rolling Initiative really helps with this, and it's a suggestion well made - but have to point out that RAW doesn't give this option, "To determine the Initiative order, each Player Character and NPC makes a Simple (-) Cool or Vigilance check." It doesn't state that's the "standard" check or that that's the "default" check or any mention of GM input for it. It gives an instruction to use Simple Difficulty. Certainly doesn't mean you can't do it anyway obviously, but since we're in the "Rules Hut", if you will - it's not what RAW says. Again, I like the suggestion, though! So I think that leaves two options. Either House Rule it and always have the GM set the Difficulty, or to adjust the Initiative rolls use Boost/Setback dice instead. From Core pg18, "Boost dice are most often used to reflect the character's possession of some sort of benefit or advantage...." Page 316 adds, "...Boost dice may be used to reward a PC for good planning..." - those sound like an ambush! Decent ambush perhaps warrants two Boost dice to the attackers? There might be a case to be made that using Difficulty level is possibly cleaner (because how many Setback dice would it take to equal the Hard Difficulty in your example) but, if you want to stick to RAW, Boost/Setback dice will do the trick.
  8. When the PCs are facing multiple sources of Fear at the same time, or shortly thereafter, how many Fear Tests should they make? The results of a failed Fear Test can be very serious indeed, considering they're probably about to enter combat, so this can be a very key question...and the devil tends to be in the details. 1) First question is, if they're confronted with multiple sources of Fear at the same time, how should it be handled? PCs enter a room with three different sources of Fear - and they're not all the same type (one sources is a creature and one's a dark ritual, for example). Just one roll or multiple? If just one roll, do you use only the Willpower modifier for the toughest Fear rating they're facing to cover all the Fear sources - or do you come up with a Willpower modifier that takes into account all of the multiple Fear sources they're facing? 2) To what extent, if any, do the PCs become inured to a source of Fear? Having made a Fear Test in Room#1, what would cause a Fear Test in Room #2 shortly thereafter? Ergo, if they made a Fear Test due to a creature with a Fear rating in the last room they were in three minutes ago, do they make another Fear Test in the next room because of an identical creature? Would a completely different kind of creature trigger another Fear Test in Room#2? Should a second Fear Test require a completely different kind of Fear source (creature in one room and a warp portal in the next)? What if the creatures are daemons (thinking this might prompt a different answer with some)? Does essentially the same daemon in Room#2 trigger another Fear Test? Does a different daemon in Room#2 trigger another Fear Test? If you think that an identical creature should not trigger a Fear Test in Room#2, - how much time needs to pass before that kind of creature necessitates a Fear Test? 5 minutes, an hour, a day...never? Thanks for everyone's thoughts.
  9. No, on page 195 of the 2e Core under the Range and Line of Sight section it states, "The target must also be within the power's stated range, but there are no modifiers for range (Short, Point Blank, etc.)."
  10. Indeed, a necessary question. Fortunately, I would offer it's been given a manifest answer in 2e by the clear classification of some powers being physical attacks and others not. In the Psychic Bolts Section on page 198 of the 2e Core it states, "A number of powers produce blasts or energy bolts that inflect harm in a manner not dissimilar to a weapon. These powers all follow the same basic rules...Psychic Bolts of all kinds can be dodged as if they were any other kind of ranged attack." The psychic powers are clearly categorized as to whether they fall into the Psychic Bolt (physical attack) category that may be evaded - so these would be the powers that are subject to cover. Cheers
  11. Here's where I'm looking at going with for Overwatch in my game. As a GM, what do I like about Overwatch? I like the flexibility it gives players to name most any condition & fire if the condition triggers. I find Overwatch interesting; I think the Overwatch Action adds to the tactics and complexity of combat. Associated with #1 above, it addresses some glaring holes that exist whenever any system uses a "Initiative" structure, whereby one has to wait until another character's turn is completely finished before you act. So even though he left cover and you were ready, he's now back behind cover because you can't fire until his action is complete. Also, without Overwatch, you can't effectively guard anyone in Structured Time - by the time they finish their Action running, they're probably out of sight by the time you get to fire...even though you were aiming at them. I think getting shot at should be a "gut-check experience", so I am happy to have this additional opportunity to have the Pinning rules brought into play. The benefits to the Shooter with Overwatch: The attack occurs on target's turn when conditions, set by the shooter, are met Precludes target from Dodging Triggers a Pinning Test for target Allows you to potentially attack multiple targets (I guess not everyone agrees with this, but it's at least strongly implied by, "Each any (sic) time the specified conditions are met before the start of the character's next turn, he can perform that attack....) I want to retain players' ability to fire on just about any condition they come up with. At the same time, I want to limit the Action's biggest benefits to it's primary purpose, which I would offer is given to us in Table 7-1 on page 219, "Shoot targets coming into a set kill zone." So Overwatch would always provide shooters benefit #1 above, name your condition and fire when the condition is triggered. For benefits #2-4, a target needs to make an Action with the Movement sub-type that takes them into the set kill zone. When this occurs, the target is precluded from Dodging, they must make a Pin Test & the shooter may similarly attack any other target that similarly make an Action with the Movement sub-type that takes them into the set kill zone. The one exception to the Movement requirement above, would be for guarding someone, or "having the drop on someone". Narratively I would argue, that if someone has the drop on someone, they should be in a very bad situation. I'd suggest that the shooter in that case should get some very strong advantages. If someone with a gun trained on them tries to either go for a weapon or try to bolt, they're simply too busy to Dodge. Regarding the Pinning Test, if the captive is trying to run then the effect of being potentially Pinned is fairly moot. Only if the captive is doing something other than escaping, such as attacking, does the Pinning become an issue. I feel like one could reasonably go in different directions on requiring a Pinning Test with an attacking captive, but here's where I'm looking at drawing the line. If the captive, who was going to attack, is hit by the shooter's Overwatch attack, then the captive must make a Pinning Test to continue their plan of attack rather than flee after being hit. If the captive is not hit by shooter's Overwatch attack, then I'm not going to have the captive make a Pinning Test. This breakdown for Overwatch I think will provide my game with what I want from the Action. YMMV
  12. Appreciate the response Keffisch. You know, after more pondering and some brainstorming on the G+ 40k Community, as well...I think I realize the answer was right in front of me. Right in front of me, as in the sidebar on page 205 entitled "GM Guidance: Divination". It was the determinative language used in the description of Scrier's Gaze that threw me off - but I think the key is just to focus on the Divination guidance in the sidebar, which I will quote at length from, only because it offers the answer to my question: "It is helpful to first determine what the player is trying to accomplish through using the power. Depending on this it may not be necessary for the GM to describe the character's visions in detail." It goes on to make the very good point that "...the Warp and fate are fickle and mutable things. The GM can and should be vague in his descriptions of revealed visions; faces, environments, and other details can be hazy and indistinct. Bearing this in mind, the GM canprovide enough information to assist the player, without giving away any plot-breaking details. The GM should also remember that the psyker does not necessarily see visions pertaining to his goal. However, GMs should take care to ensure that a player gains something through successful use of Divination powers. Any use of psychic ability includes an element of risk, though; visions are often devoid of context, which poses the danger of acting on incomplete information." And, for the most part, there you have it.
  13. There's a good chance that the Divination psyker power Scrier's Gaze is going to come into play in the campaign I run. So it was time for a close reread of it with an eye towards the hard practicalities of implementing it. I came away with a lot of questions. I'll pose the questions I have for the various DoS results on Table 6-4 (p205). One DoS: How far can one cast this power? Say the psyker is one Hive on a planet and the psyker wants to get a peek at a heretic in another hive on the other side of the planet. They successfully invoke Scrier's Gaze with 1 DoS - is that too far? There's nothing in the basic power description or 1-DoS result that gives an idea. If you say the GM should make the range something "reasonable" - what would be reasonable? The next room over? The next hab block over? The next neighborhood over? One DoS: To what extent does the psyker have to know where to look? Say 1DoS is achieved trying view a particular heretic - does the psyker have to know what room the heretic's currently in to view him? Or is it enough to know which Manse on the block the heretic is in? Or is it enough just to know what neighborhood the heretic is in? Two DoS: With this result, the psyker is "able to see all activity within an entire battle field or hive level." I read this & immediately thought how the DH 1e Core told us that the diameter of a Hive Sibellus hive level was 8,000 kilometers! (A flight from San Francisco to New York is only about 4,100 kilometers.) Understood that the psyker cannot discern details on individuals, but was "see all activity" of an area with a diameter twice the width of the United States the intention? Three DoS: This result is where it really hits the fan. So the psyker is now able to "discern details as to individual activities and exact enemy numbers" over the previously discussed area with a diameter twice the width of the U.S.? So if the psyker was looking for a single heretic somewhere in the United States and achieved 3 DoS with this power, would he then know exactly where that heretic was? Or does the psyker have to have previously known pretty much exactly where that heretic was in the U.S., and now with 3 DoS can see what that heretic is doing in New York, even though the psyker is in San Francisco? It's worth noting that this power cannot be Sustained, so the psyker apparently gets essentially a snapshot - what exactly are they able to discern about, say, ten individual's activities in ten different locations over an area with an 8,000 kilometer diameter? What about 50 individual's activities spread out over 8,000 kilometers? What's the limit, if any? Four DoS: The phrase, "...knows details of the plots any enemy leaders are planning" is a sticky wicket, because it sounds like mind reading. So the psyker is on a general heretic hunt in the United States (which is only 1/2 the diameter of Hive Sibellus mind you), gets 4 DoS and now "knows details of the plots any enemy leaders are planning." (Emphasis mine.) This makes it sounds like the psyker didn't have to know about the existence of the enemy leaders beforehand. Does the psyker need to have known about the existence of the enemy leaders before invoking this power or would this power identify all the existing heretics in the country and reveal details of their various plots? I'm guessing that this power costing 200xp was not intended to grant omniscience, even if momentary, over 8,000 kilometers...but I find this power's wording very problematic. I feel like I almost have to rewrite this power's abilities. Thoughts?
  14. Warklaw, my group is most definitely using the awesome Roll20 DH 2e character sheet & roll result scripts - if that was your handywork - excellent job, sir!
  15. Just released is the Q4-2014 Orr Report (Roll20), which details how many are playing what over the Roll20 gaming platform. Dark Heresy came in 8th on the list...but it's a little more impressive than even that. Essentially, there's all the D&D versions (including Pathfinder), all versions of Star Wars & then Dark Heresy! Considering they've previously reported that Roll20 now, I believe, have north of 700,000 users, and gaining approximately 1,000 new users per day, it's a very reasonable sample size. The report itself on Roll20's blog, which shows the entire list of games is here: http://blog.roll20.net/post/107957194710/the-orr-group-industry-report-q4-2014 Ave, Imperator
  • Create New...