Jump to content

ac429

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About ac429

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    New York City, New York, United States
  1. Tygre said: ac429 said: I mean, does that mean my heavy gunner or my weapon specialist can never be promoted to a sergeant? Can they then, never be promoted to an officer position, either? Or if they are, what happens to their exp and aptitudes, etc? I feel this is something Dark Heresy did right. The guardsman was actually promoted in a way that makes sense, compared to real life military structure.. I feel if this issue isn't addressed, a lot of players won't be able to play Only War, because they will not be able to suspend their disbelief. Promotions will likely be covered in a future supplement and they would likely keep their exp and aptitudes. Dark Heresy didn't make sense that guardsmen with a certain amount of advancements was automatically an officer. In real life you are not guaranteed promotion either. An elisted can have a full career without having been Commissioned to an officer .NCO to Officer would also depend on the Regiment also and would not be very common. Comparing it to Dark Heresy your Guardsmen took the "Big Gun" path instead of the "Command" path. I think that when Games Workshop initially wrote about Imperial Guard regiments they had the Napoleonic British Regiments in mind (remember GW was founded in the UK). Look at the way the Regiments are structured, there is only one Colonel, a handful of Captains, and a handful of Lt's per Captain. Like in the old British army regimental system, there might not be a position to be promoted into. Transferring you to a different regiment would be an exception not the rule. I was using the modern American military as a perspective, since we're using assault rifles and rocket launchers and tanks and what not, and there's kind of a commonality. But then, the American military is a voluntary system, and IG is not, so I can see the difference. But, in the American military, promotion is all but assured. As enlisted, if you are not a sergeant within 12 years, you're kicked out of th organization. It's very much a "go up or get out" system. It's a bit slower in the officer side, especially in the air force. But it's not like you can be "private forever! No responsibilities!" (as much as I wish you could..).
  2. I agree with musclewizard, and Macharias, Plushy. Maybe these archetypes shouldn't be named after ranks or designations. Maybe they should have just named the sergeant "Hero", because he's a guy everyone gathers towards, and looks up to. Maybe they should have named the heavy gunner "Brawn", because he's basically the same rank as the weapon specialist (which is actually a rank, "Specialist", above privates), only bigger so he has to lug around the bigger weapons, and also he has a bit more HP. The operator is fine, because he's basically a private that's trained to drive (operate) a tank (after the appropriate training). The weapon specialist…why not just call him a Gun Enthusiast, or just Infantry, or something? He seems to be a mashing of whoever is "none of the above / Generic Guy" and also "the guy with special weapons in the table top game". And Medic? What a specific role. Can I be a mess cook as a role as well? How about the guy who drives a forklift at the warehouse? Maybe just rename him to "Brains" and he can be more proficient at more support roles (like using a typewriter). By removing these rank numbers, you can now follow a "Brawn" from boot camp, to trenches, to becoming a veteran, to eventually becoming a leader as a sergeant. Who knows, maybe he'll be lucky enough to go to Officer School, and become a luetenant. I'm not saying everyone get's to be an officer, but I am saying there should be a feasable system for some to become an officer. EDIT - I'm not trying to be a troll. I'm just saying, this is the perspective some potential audience might approach this ruleset. For me, these are hurdles that would make it really hard for me to get into this game. Nomenclature is important, especially in a large organization, where everyone needs to be on the same page.
  3. venkelos said: This position makes me feel better. So much of the regular writing in 40k leans more toward "if the psyker gets a shiver, shoot him, just to be sure." And makes it sound like the Commissar won't have a worry; they did their job. The universal mistrust and disgust most Imperials hold for non-Emperor psykers makes it feel, sometimes, that in an RPG, along with harrowing missions where everyone can die, a psyker PC also has to worry about, sooner or later, just being a party casualty, as they get capped for "looking at the group funny, like they were maybe going to let a Daemon loose on'em, or something." I don't have the OW beta, but being the Wizard/Jedi loving player I am, Psyker would likely be my first character attempt, were I to get to play Only War, and that would be markedly less fun if there was a ticking clock, counting down to when the psyker oopses, as it's a built in mechanic, and gets killed for it. If a machine malfunctions, you don't shoot the Tech-Priest, but the psyker is a real worry. Glad that this game won't run like that, and my character would have, more or less, the same survivability likelyhood as everyone else. Well, we should keep in mind, it's always political, and thus, DM can always exercise his discression for the players' benefit. Here's the thing, the IG is a very big institution, and laws are 'percieved' differently from location to location. One regiment might scrutanize Commisar behavor very closely, and anything they do might be scorned at. By scorned at, i mean either decomissioned, or sent on "unfortunate missions" by those in command. Alternatively, the players might be in a regiment where commisars have a lot of politcal sway. Maybe they're buddy buddies with those high in command. In that case, the commisars can getaway with shooting kids, to confiscate their "contraband" candy bar.
  4. Under the current rules, if your group wants to play without comrades, they could try playing a stormtrooper fireteam. Or stormtroopers lead by a Commisair. Or why not 4 Commisairs? The rules have nothing against that. To be honest though, I feel like Comrades are a huge cop out. The arguements I hear is that, they do the heavy lifting so that the players can do 'heroic' things, or that the comrades are cannon fodder, or that it fleshes out the squad. First of all, if we wanted to play heroic characters, we could just play deathwatch. If you play IG, you're doing pretty much the least glorified thing possible. If you're going to seriously RP that, you're supposed to do that heavy lifting, GRUNT work yourself. Secondly, the squad can be fleshed out by just adding NPCs. Are the players playing an infantry squad? Why don't the DM just add 5 or 6 NPCs to fill out the squad. Then, if none of the players play a heavy gunner, and the squad might come against a tank, the DM can just add an NPC heavy gunner with a rocket launcher. Same thing with weapon specialist or sergeant. Is the squad playing a weapon specialist or heavy weapons squad? Those are capped at 6 guardsmen, so 4 players with comrades already break that canon. Lastly, the fact that comrades reduce the danger of being shot is the biggest cop out, ever. Being in guard has it's dangers, and by skirting around this, the players are losing out on the exact RP opportunity that being IG is supposed to afford them, as opposed to say dark heresy or rogue trader. Being a guardmans is dangerous, but you have protection in numbers. Not just your squad, but your platoon, and then your company. Comrades doesn't take account for that. Just adding more NPCs will.
  5. In most modern armies, you either join as an officer, who are generally more educated and paid more, or as an enlisted, who are more of the workling class blokes, who get paid less. Sometimes if you're enlisted long enough, and you show potential, you're promoted to a sergeant, and if you're lucky or talented, you're even promoted into being an officer. Both, the Office line, and the Enlisted line start at rank 1 (E1: private, airman basic, seaman recruit. O1: second lieutenant, Ensign), and are promoted rank 2 (E2 or O2) and then rank 3 and so on. But the point is, the officer line and the enlisted line are usually pretty destinct, and their cultures don't always intersect. So, where exactly in this system do the officers lay? They would make perfect sense as specialists, I guess. Or you could turn the sergeant into an Officer instead. Give him extra comrades, and RP precedence. This also fixes the problem of "well, how does my heavy gunner progress in his career?"
  6. I mean all else equal, the weapon specialist will just be a better shot, because of his characteristic bonus. Also, due to his aptitudes, he's just going to contiue becoming a better shot than the stormtrooper, due to the exp curve. I mean, on the table top game, the stormtrooper has a much better BS than the guardsman. In fact, the stormtrooper has the shooting capability of a space marine! What the stormtrooper is NOT as good as the space marine in, what the stormtrooper is equal to guardsmen at, is WS! And in Only War, the stormtrooper is suddenly a WS powerhouse, thanks to his aptitude! What's up with that? I feel like this system is conflicting quite a bit with the empyrical evidence already put in play, already observed by the players, in the table top game.
  7. I mean, does that mean my heavy gunner or my weapon specialist can never be promoted to a sergeant? Can they then, never be promoted to an officer position, either? Or if they are, what happens to their exp and aptitudes, etc? I feel this is something Dark Heresy did right. The guardsman was actually promoted in a way that makes sense, compared to real life military structure.. I feel if this issue isn't addressed, a lot of players won't be able to play Only War, because they will not be able to suspend their disbelief.
×
×
  • Create New...