Jump to content

tehjburz

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About tehjburz

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Kitchener, ON, Canada
  1. I've actually decided to write my own adventure for the Con, opening with Order 66 and then a flash-forward to the situation under the Empire. Having said that, I'd be happy to collaborate on converting the module, and converting the characters was the least-interesting task for me, honestly.
  2. Hey all, I'm going to be GMing a certain other game system at an upcoming local con, but I have a slot open in my schedule. I run an AoR game weekly, so I'm familiar with the FFG SW system. I love Force and Destiny and I want to be able to show it off a bit at this con to get people excited about it. I've already run the adventure in the beta book and have no interest in running it again. I'm considering simply converting the Saga Edition adventure, The Betrayal of Darth Revan, to the FaD system, since I love it and the time period, and it's a great one-shot. Having said that, I'd love your opinions on the following: 1. Has anyone already converted it? Given the popularity, I would have thought so - but my search came up empty. 2. Are there any user-created one-shots that you'd recommend instead? 3. Could I potentially get in trouble for converting it and making it freely available? 4. Any other thoughts on the conversion? Peace is a lie, Burek
  3. I was at a cancelled Black Crusade game and was one of three players who showed up. If we could have gotten generics, I would have run the module, but no one was interested. I'm not sure why this happened but FFG seems pretty determined to have more volunteers for next year. I got the card for Jaffer Batica, an FFG event co-ordinator, so I might contact them for next year.
  4. To anyone who has run the module: How long did it take to run? I'm looking at it and it looks to me like I could squeeze it into one session, but I'm not sure. It looks like the length of the module could be tailored pretty easily by lengthening or shortening the final scene. Any feedback on length (or the module itself) is appreciated.
  5. Thanks for putting this together and keeping it updated. I'll give this a look and let you know if I notice any strange behaviour.
  6. I'd say that how you handle Duty and Obligation in your game should really depend on the kind of game you're trying to run. Having said that, my preferred method as a GM would be to keep both tables, as suggested earlier. While Obligation and Duty have mechanical effects, I see them as primarily narrative-enhancing. I feel they should be used accordingly. That means that if someone in your AoR party wants to play the reluctant smuggler who is helping the Rebels while they deal with a bounty on their head, they should probably have the Obligation to represent that. If they've cleared their old debts (or they are minor enough to not be a potential issue) but they still want to play a Smuggler, then they don't need Obligation. If the campaign is AoR-focused and that Smuggler assists the Rebels, then they should earn some Duty. Even if they didn't start with a specific Duty, you can decide based on the nature of their character or their contribution what that Duty should be. TL;DR: If you want to tell a story that includes Obligation in AoR, then take it. It's a narrative-enhancing mechanic that should work for your game, not against it. If you want to play an EotE career using Duty instead of Obligation, I don't see why that is a problem (mechanically or narratively). Just my two cents.
  7. I'd be interested in taking a look, and running it if I can convince my Black Crusade group to swap focus for a bit. Feel free to drop me a PM.
  8. You're right that the table doesn't have any options where you gain Insanity Points. However, page 305 states that players gain +1d5 Insanity Points when failing a non-combat fear test by three or more degrees of success. I think you're right - the intention was to keep the Black Crusade table, but to add in the Insanity Point kickers. I think I'll keep the BC table but just add in the IP kickers on the relevant tiers from Dark Heresy.
  9. Just wanted to echo what MILLANDSON said. I had an issue with my copy of Black Crusade (completely deficient binding) and FFG's Customer Service was efficient and helpful at getting it resolved.
  10. MILLANDSON said: I got a response from FFG, and it is what I'd originally thought: Hi Jordan, I apologize for those entries, they are misleading and unclear. The intention is that that the player can use their Additional Standard Kit points to add additional weapons (one Basic and one Heavy) to be Favoured Weapon for the Regiment, giving the +10 to Logistics Tests, and allowing Specialities who gain access to the Regimental Favoured Weapons to select them at character creation. This clarification will be included in the first Errata document. Basically, you get the standard 1xBasic Favoured Weapon and 1xHeavy Basic Weapon, but paying the 10/15 points allows you to select an additional Favoured Weapon, allowing you +10 to acquire that weapon, and the Weapon Specialist/Heavy Weapons guy gets to select that weapon as additional kit as per the specialty rules for those two choices. Thanks for keeping us updated. Glad to see we interpreted it correctly.
  11. tehjburz

    Comrades

    LuciusT said: Actually, my understanding is that Comrades don't have stats at all. They can't do anything except the limited set of Orders and/or special abilities the character buys for them. They have their own unique system for damage. They cannot attack. They don't make skill rolls. They are nothing but a name, a deamenor and maybe a few special abilities. This was my understanding as well. Part of the explanation in the book seemed to suggest that the intent was to make comrades simple, and make them not have to test continually, which would slow down gameplay. I actually find the current implementation (at least, my interpretation of it) to be rather elegant in its simplicity. Having said that, there's nothing stopping you from fleshing out comrades as fully-statted NPCs with their own actions as a house rule, if you (and your players!) don't mind the extra management. Just remember that this will substantially increase the power of the party if you allow these new "super-comrades" to take their own actions outside of the standard comrade options.
  12. MILLANDSON said: Except you are able to pick Favoured Weapons without having to take the options for them on the table, as shown by all the pre-generated regiments and the testing done throughout the Beta. As I said above, I sent an e-mail to FFG asking for clarification on what the two options on the table actually do. I figured it added another favoured weapon to the regiment's existing ones; eg. During Regiment Creation, you chose Plasma Gun as your favoured basic weapon and Heavy Bolter as favoured heavy weapon, but by paying the option on the table you can add a Flamer as a second favoured basic weapon. I agree it seems costly for something which is probably rarely necessary, so I'm eager to see the response from FFG. Keep us posted!
×
×
  • Create New...