Jump to content

Sanguinius40k

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Yes in my opinion, standard crew ratings are a bit ridiculous. Our GM built our voidship for us and he let us start with crew rating 20. It occured that at the start of the campaign we did'nt had any PCs with the Pilot (Spacecraft) Skill. So when going to a planet via Shuttle, we had to rely on NPC Pilots. Those had an effektive Skill of 20 + 30 for Routine Action. So even with some heavy wind we always had to fear for our lifes when landing on a planet. Its very odd that on a spaceship with thousands of voidborn the best you can find is someone with an effective Skill in Pilot(Spacecraft) of 20. Its not that you pick your Pilots randomly out of your crewmembers. You take the best ones you find. So the best pilots out of 30.000 voidsmen have Agility 20 and are trained with Spacecraft? Or do they have 40 Agility and Pilot Spacecraft as basic skill? Doesn't sound reasonable to me. And yes, if you have a crack (50) crew, i think it is okay to have a couple dozen people out of your 20.000 to 100.000 crewmen with a skill of 50 for almost every skill. But i don't want to kidnap this thread with a crew rating discussion. I would really be interested how the "evasive manoeuvre" houserule would effect the macrocannon vs. other weapons performance in RT. Would you please crunch a little numbers for me, Moribund?
  2. Macro-Cannons are good allrounders in RT and with high BS they even outperform most other weapons. Yes this houserule would not only weaken high-hit macrocannons, but macrocannons in general would be worse against this ship. It is intended to augment the rock-paper-scissor principle. An armoured ship like this lunar cruiser would be best attacked with lance weapons, torpedos and the like.
  3. My experience from voidcombats in RT so far is that the movement manoeuver "evasive manoeuvres" is rarely used. Every ship only has one movement action per strategic turn and it is very important to get into good positions. Regarding that Macrocannons live and fall with high DoS, wouldn't it be simplest to just make evasive maneuver a better option? Instead of applying the same penalty to your own shooting, how about only half the penalty? So 4 DoS at Evasion would mean -40 to hit you, but only -20 to hit him. This means up to 4 hits less from the macro-cannon salvo shooting at you. Or - maybe better - delete the penalty for yourself but the evasion only counts for a single opponent of your choice. The main problem is the difference between player and NPC skill. Why not just also bump NPC crew ratings up by 10 Points? I always thought that the crew ratings were ridiculously low by default... Something like this: Incompetent 30 Competent 40 Crack 50 Veteran 60 Elite 70 Considering the support by extended actions this should suffice to give PCs a challenge. This means every ship has a tactic against macro-cannons. You see a ship loaded with macro-cannons? You better start evading!
  4. We are currently playing a rogue trader campaign and are enjoying it very much. We aren't at the point yet, that we had balancing problems with macro-cannons. But i see the point and have some thought to solve this problem. I am no friend of houserules that change a lot of table-entries or written text. That's why i personally don't like the "mathhammer" solution. Players look in the books and are confused why their weapons now do less damage than in the tables. But that's just my experience. My idea is to just modify an existing voidship component. In this case: Armor Plating and Armoured Prow. (the "excess void armor" component in "lure of the expanse" is crap.) Houserule: Armor Plating (supplemental component) Additional adamantine plates protect this vessel from harm. Armor: Increase this vessel's Armor by 1. This component may be chosen once plus one more time for every full 20 points of hull integrity the voidship has. For every additional time after the first, that this component is chosen decrease the damage of every macrocannon and bomber hit by 1 before adding together the total damage of the hits. Dead Weight: Decrease this vessel's Manoeuvrability by -2. For every additional time this component is chosen, decrease the Manoeuvrability by -3. If this component is taken more than once, decrease the speed by 2 for a raider or transport and by 1 for frigates and cruisers. Armoured Prow is a component just for cruisers. Add the following to the description: When hit from the prow direction, decrease the damage of every macrocannon and bomber hit by 1 before adding together the total damage of the hits. Example: a Lunar class cruiser (core rulebook p.196) could take the (houseruled) Armor Plating component up to 1+3=4 times. The lunar cruiser would then have 21 Armour, speed 4, Manoev -1 (+10-11) and would have paid 8 space points for the excessive armor platings. In this case every macrocannon would have to decrease the damage of every hit by 3 points. A plasma battery with 1d10+4 damage and 8 hits (10 hits -2 for void shields) would then on average do 31 damage instead of the original 55 damage. Against the Prow (with armoured prow component) it would have been only 19 damage. On average, it would take at least 6 hits to even deal damage with a macrocannon against this cruiser (with shield rating 2). This way it is possible to create a very heavily armoured voidship, that is fairly resilient against the macrocannon rule, but at the cost of mobility. The armoured prow houserule adds a tactical element. With it, it's best to get into the rear or the flanks of the cruiser to damage it with macrocannons. But cruisers are the most lethal in the side-firearcs.. Do you have any thoughts on that? Any critic or points that i missed?
  5. I gave my proposal a second thought and i had the same idea. First Aid as a Medicae-Test with a pentalty equal to the total number of wounds times 5. If successfull a number of wounds equal to the DoS counts as treated. Additional tries are possible, but the DoS dont stack. The next test simply has to achieve more DoS to treat more wounds. Every try after the first inflicts 1 level of fatigue to the "victim". This way you dont need much bookkeeping. Example: Poor Evedor has suffered 4 Wounds from gunshots. He gets First Aid by his Pal Chiru. Chiru has a Skill of 60. This is a -20 Medicae Test (-5 * 4). He gets lucky and rolls a 18. The Test results in 3 DoS. This means 3 Wounds are treated and 1 is not.Evedor now has an effective wound effect modifier of 14 (3*3+1*5) instead of 20 (4*5). Evedor suffers another wound for a total of 5. He still has 3 treated wounds, but now 2 untreated ones. This would be a -25 Medicae Test. Chiru would need 4 DoS for 4 treated wounds and Evedor would suffer a level of fatigue. 5 DoS for 5 treated wounds aren't possible because of his skill of 60.
  6. First off: First Aid should be strong, because the world is quite deadly and there is a character role that specialises on Medicae To adress your points: 1) Yes, i agree it should be Intelligence. 2) Yes, for simplicity. I guess First aid in 40k will be something like applying drugs or painkillers etc. 3) Yes, 4 AP (or 2 AP for Chirurgeon) seems right to me. 4) I don't think it should heal a wound. First aid should lessen the "wound effect bonus" a wound (+5) or critical Wound (+10) gives. But the suffered wound effects remain. Lets say it's a +0 Medicae test and every DoS reduces the wound effect bonus by 1. My guess would be to a Minimum of +2 for a normal wound and +4 for a critical wound. This effect should be temporary (10 minutes?) Only one wound is affected per test and every wound can only be treated once by First aid. This way the wound isn't removed, but the target's life is extended. The victim can survive more wounds (10+ seem possible with excellent chirurgeon), but will be in lethal danger after the battle. Everyone involved knows their buddy with 9 wounds will die if the chirurgeon can't save him. This can make for interesting scenes. Of course the rules for medicae would also have to be modified, because the "extended care" use of the Medicae Skill isn't supposed to do that. So maybe this new "emergency surgery" use of Medicae could do what first aid does now.
  7. I think it would be best and simplest to just Cap the Agility Score instead of capping Agility Bonus and giving a penalty on Agility Tests Separatly. So, for example, feudal armor could limit the Agility Score to 20. This means a maximum agility bonus of 2 and makes saltos in feudal armor very difficult.
  8. Fluff-wise it isn't that questionable. Considering that in the Table-Top game Power Weapons also completly ignore Power Armor and till 5th Edition they ignored even Terminator Armor. But yeah, in the RPG there should be armor modifications available in my opinion.
  9. I have the following ideas how to deal with the issue of automatic weapons and several minor wounds "till explode" and auto-weapons beeing the uber-****: -> Wounds are inflicted on "attack"-basis rather than on "hit"-basis. So lets keep it easy and say i get 6 hits with an autopistol with 8 damage each and the Target has a defense score of 5. Instead of dealing 6 wounds to the target each causing wound effect 3, it would deal 1 wound with wound effect 18. This way single-shot weapons with higher damage will be better against tough enemies, while auto-weapons will be better against lighter enemies. -> Righteous Fury can only be inflicted on the first hit each round. This is to prevent auto-weapons from increasing the fury-chance to 30+%. Also, this will benefit weapons with 2+ damage dice more, because they have a higher fury chance. -> Weapons of the "heavy" type deal 2 wounds with each successful attack (see the first proposal), instead of one (on fury: 1 wound and 1 critical wound). This is to make heavy weapons more frightening (so better seek good cover, how it should be).
  10. There is the Weapon Modification called "Reinforced" that gives a 50% chance to ignore the status reduction. This one should also be made available as armor modification or maybe this rule should be an integral part of power armor and the like.
×
×
  • Create New...