Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MagnusPihl

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/13/1982

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. That's pretty much what I was about to post. My group has been playing (non-40k) Fate Accelerated Edition for a while now and are loving it. I imagine if we ever go back to 40k, it'll be some sort of Fate conversion.
  2. You've mentioned Fate several times, cps, so I assume you approve of it? This is a fairly interesting homebrew project: https://fate40k.obsidianportal.com/wikis/main-page#onlycrunch A little too much crunch for my taste, but Fate does seem to lend itself well to customization. I've yet to play my first Fate game (soon, though!), so can't say much to back that up.
  3. Uh, this example is actually pretty bad because the Assassin is one of the "multi-role roles" so two Assassins can differ greatly depending on the players' choices. The Hierophant, the Warrior and the Sage are much better to represent cookie-cutter characters. Warrior, then. It really makes no difference, though - the point is that someone else has decided what my backstory is for me. In that case, I'm not particularly interested in having it make an impact. Whether Assassins have 1 or 10 potential backstories is just decorating the turd.
  4. There's no problem with a PC having a role in a role-playing game. The problem is that you're forcing the PC to have one of X very narrow, utterly clichéd roles. If you want every Hive World Assassin to be basically the same person at the start of the campaign, you're not playing a game I'd want to be in. I'm all for background stories having an effect on the system (though I don't think it's strictly necessary - a group can make stories matter as much or as little as they wish), but then I'd want it to be my story that had an effect - not a generic one written by FFG.
  5. Yup. Why was it we went back to this wreck of a skill system again? It's not like the skill systems have ever been particularly compatible in the 40k RPG line (at least it was a bit of a shift in BC/OW).
  6. I have both the "Likes" and Messages icon. Do you have any sort of Javascript blocking running, Tom? Some extensions/add-ons? Maybe test with a different browser?
  7. Maybe I'm missing something... how do you cast Sunburst twice? Is it not an attack action? Can you not only do one attack action per round?
  8. That's not fair, Gaunt. That OW content didn't update its own layout. There's, like, all new page borders.
  9. To be fair, some people on this board have been playing pen and paper a long time, so they can peruse and come to a conclusion with minimal game-play before going back to their house-rules. They can come back here and report problems they've found and propose solutions (if they have them) without playing it extensively. Sure they're anecdotal evidence is limited to non-existent but sound theory regarding the rules is more important anyway. To be fair, though, some people who have been playing pen and paper a long time (and some who haven't) vastly overestimate their design skills and assume that they can come to a conclusion with minimal (or no) game-play. Which is why we have a beta test.
  10. Tom, not only I agree, I would say that fun is the most important thing in RPG. this is why I believe in giving all players the same initial amount of FPs is an idea that could work very well. What do you think? The Gm could allow the group to roll once and apply the results to all characters as appropriate. Maybe? Why, though? What does the randomness of starting fate points add to the game?
  11. I realize I'm probably the reverse of popular opinion on this, but I thought that the subtlety/investigation chapter was the least interesting thing in the old beta. I liked the idea of it, but it made very little sense in practice. Subtlety being a group thing, and sorta-kinda permanent across very distant systems, made no sense to my group, and I couldn't adequately defend it (because it didn't make much sense to me, either). "Social combat", while interesting, was just awkward. Maybe it's just how our group works, but we usually just role-play these things. It became very stiff and artificial when I tried to introduce the rules, despite our best intentions. If you want a story-based RPG, I honestly don't think any of FFG's offering (including the old beta) are a good choice. I certainly wouldn't recommend shelling out for just the one chapter, at least in its current state. I'm more and more tempted to just ditch the official offerings and go for FATE, or maybe some sort of modified version of Mouse Guard, as I too would prefer a story-centric approach.
  12. I thought it was a pretty good idea, honestly. Just some bad numbers. The fractions were the obvious offender - those should all have been RoF 1 with a Single Shot quality. The other big problem was when they introduced scaling with Agility which could lead to insanely high numbers. Either drop the scaling or set a cap (though the built-in WS cap did help with this - it might actually not have been that bad in practice). I don't think there was a real problem with the high-RoF ranged weapons. They were all scaled fairly well to either be a few almost-safe hits, or a bunch of doubtful ones. Risk vs. reward. Also, it was a hell of a lot cleaner than Semi-/Full-Auto. The system was intuitive in that you could explain the basic rules to someone and they could extrapolate from there. It was self-contained. The return to half/full actions will probably mean that I won't be playing 40k RPGs in the future (yeah, yeah, door hitting me on the way out, etc.).
  13. The old beta did have the feel of a happy accident. I agree that their willingness to take our feedback at face value was worrying. The release schedule we were looking at wouldn't have made a great game - there were definitely too many flaws. That said, if given another two months (randomly picked number with no relevance to current events, naturally) of weekly updates, I could really see myself loving that system. It already played very well in my group, despite the rough spots (none of which had to do with combat, by the way, which flowed incredibly well at our table).
  14. It also makes late-game advances in WS and especially BS not worthwhile, while Agility upgrades continue to be King forever and ever. It was a terrible system, whether it was "meant" to be used or not. Being intentional does not excuse poor design.
  15. Maybe this is just my lack of practical experience with Only War, but I'm having a hard time seeing the point of Aptitudes. Obviously, it's there to differentiate the classes. I get that. But is that even a good thing? Some differentiation is needed, obviously, or the whole class system should be thrown out as a whole. But is exp differentiation really an interesting way to do it? The home/background/role special abilities go a long way to differentiate the classes, and some of them in an interesting way (though overpowered in several cases). The Assassin is ideal for single, high-damage hits, preferably with a high RF chance. The Warrior is ideal for getting consistent hits. The Desperado is ideal for dual-wielding. Some of the others are less interesting (you only have so many fate points), but the idea is in there. Characters are naturally inclined to take skills/talents that accentuate their natural abilities. I think that's much more interesting than having variable experience costs. So.. knowing this probably isn't happening, 'cause there's only so many major redesigns in a beta, how about this: Throw out Aptitudes and their wonky cost system. Make all skills and talents available to everyone at the same price and then redesign the home/background/role special abilities to enhance the thematically appropriate skills/talents of that class. Make those special abilities really shine, by allowing for great synergy with appropriate talents. I think the Assassin/Warrior roles are half way there - they just need some balancing. The others could catch up.
  • Create New...