Jump to content

musungu

Members
  • Content Count

    359
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About musungu

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Budapest, Hungary
  1. Your interpretation seems to be correct (it probably is correct, it's just 1 am here, and I can't be arsed to cross-reference everything) - you activate it in your round, spending a Full, Half or Free Action depending on the power level (so if you Push it, you still have the complete turn), and, at the beginning of your next round, decide whether to sustain it. If yes, it takes a half action.
  2. That particular short story (an excellent one, btw) operates under the logic of the original GW lore, where the DW, as the OX's Chamber Militant, is completely subservient to the Inquisitor they're assigned to. FFG's DW lore puts some freedom back into the hands of the DW Astartes - but I don't want to go at it at length, it has been discussed on this forum many times already. That said, opposing the Inquisitor head-on would probably still bring the very same consequences. Contacting other Inquisitors though? I think it's doable, either directly in the Watch Fortress, where many of them reside or work, or via an Ultramarine or successor in a different kill-team. That has the potential of being an excellent cat-and-mouse game of politics and spycraft.
  3. I figure a steadfast Ultramarine would sooner suspect the lazy Inquisitor with heresy than think about switching sides. Erioch is teeming with the Ordo Xenos - he could contact a rival of the Inquisitor (if the guy's a radical, contact a puritan or the other way around) to start investigating the suspected heresy. You could also contact all the Ultramarine successor guys in the DW, regardless of their rank, to build a faction against the Inquisitor, as they must be willing to listen to you.
  4. Guys, give me some time to process this veritable cornucopia of information, but know in advance that I'm immensely grateful.
  5. Mate, I have only six, and I'm still struggling far too often to keep everybody involved, immersed and entertained. What's your secret? Also, a 24-plus-fate-point-burn battle must have been epic. Know that I'm envious.
  6. Hey, mate, don't take it too hard. Take into consideration that we're brainstorming under limited information here. It's inevitable that some extreme opinions and suggestions pop up - apparently we seem to mentally replace your guy with our most problematic experience after all, myself included I personally don't think the whole issue is worth being so worked up over - it's just harder to have your empathy towards someone we don't know and try to partially reconstruct based on fragmentary knowledge. Anyway, I say you do it your way wherever it may lead, and, I cannot stress enough, if you need technical or narrative advice to handle certain steps along the road, we'll be all too happy to oblige - on the other hand, let the rest of it go, and don't let any of us tell you what to do with your friend. You know the situation along with the gaming and group dynamics best; you decide, period. And if there's further /tg/-like unmoderated drama, Emperor help me, I'll gladly report myself to the nearest Commissar immediately (Long Live Friend Computer! Fun Is Mandatory! Failure to Report Unhappiness Is Treason! Treason Is Punishable by Death!)
  7. Why not? I knew some mates in various gaming groups who were amazing (or at least normal) people when not gaming, but during gaming, they transformed to disruptive pieces of crap, because they thought playing their edgelord characters to the hilt is what "true roleplay" is. I think we're all familiar with the lines: "But I'm only doing what my character would do! How can you call that disruptive and bad roleplaying?" And also remember that if the player in question is embedded in the circle of friends and is a good company otherwise, it can be awfully hard to cut him/her from the gaming group, because it can have powerful ripple effects elsewhere. Resigning as a GM is keeping the friend with minimal collateral damage. Also, are we really having a That Guy thread right now? I thought that's well within /tg/ territory
  8. What do you mean by "techmarine tool"? I'm guessing either Servo Harness or Omnissian Axe as iconic Techmarine pieces of equipment, but I might be wrong. If you meant one of these, then the answer is yes. Techmarines start with one servo-arm or mechadendrite, and have to wait till rank 4 to buy the Servo Harness Integration talent in order to get the rest of their Doctor Octopus arms. The Omnissiah Axe's Renown requirement also puts it out of the reach of a Rank 1 Techmarine.
  9. Well, in a nutshell: at the beginning most of my players were new to 40k, and following orders to kill big things in spectacular ways satisfied them perfectly. Nowadays they managed to develop some sort of a personality, but most of them picked goody-two-shoes Chapters like Salamanders and Ultramarine successors, and the possibly deviant ones are frequently absent or are keen to follow orders and minimize collateral damage. I am also to blame as I started GMing with this group and system, and initially I didn't mind them being a bit passive off the field as it simplified my life. As I grew more comfortable running the basic stuff, I started to introduce various motives of internal conflict, ambiguity and moral grey zones, but as most of us are working already, the best we can manage is a once-in-a-month-Saturday-afternoon gaming schedule, which makes introducing these changes and storylines very slow and gradual. The AdMech project is my ham-fisted way to set them against nominal allies in order to provoke more active roleplay. Mate, that's fantastic. I still have a few months until we get to the AdMech adventure (sadly we play only once in a month), but, thanks to you, the gears are already turning in my head. And yes, I'm absolutely interested in the Thallaxi fan supplement.
  10. As a matter of fact, yes. Alex (ak-73), a prolific contributor and one of the Ancient Ones of the DW forums, created comprehensive rules on his blog (which is generally worth checking out for DW players and GMs alike): http://40kroleplay.weebly.com/40k-roleplay-blog/chapter-rules-mentors
  11. Strictly speaking, each level of Psy Rating is a separate Talent, just like every single individual Psychic Power. A Greater Follower can pick 11 Talents, so technically, if you choose nothing but levels in PR and powers, the Follower could have a Psy Rating of 1 and 10 separate psychic powers (note that the prerequisites for picking each power still apply), or a PR of 10 and one power (or anything in between, but I guess you caught my drift ) Of course I think creating such a follower would be pretty much silly, but all depends on your play style. I wouldn't even think about allowing it in my games, but some other groups I know could accommodate and handle such a character easily If you want to improve a Lesser or Standard Follower, the rules are on p. 112 of FF. There's no rule for further improving Greater Followers - in fact, the book repeatedly discourages readers from creating too powerful Followers, and if you absolutely must break the game, there are plenty of other ways to do that with less math
  12. Jeez, that's a whole lot of fate points - do you run a party for a demi-company?
  13. My understanding is that Skills and Talents work the same way in this respect - that is, by picking one subset you exhausted that particular option and you cannot take the same entry of the Advance Table again. Where the option is offered so that it may be taken multiple times, it is always clearly marked - for example, both the Blood Raven and Novamarine Chapter Advance tables in HtC offer two separate common lore skills, and subsequently list them like this: Lore: Common (any two) The relevant rules can be found on p. 94 (Skill Groups) and p. 108 (Talent Groups) in Core.
  14. Hey guys, it's probably a very dumb question, but favour me here. Weirdly last weekend was the first time my Assault Marine decided to divide the four CC attacks amongst multiple mêlée opponents, and I realised I always assumed one can only declare a Multiple Attacks action against a single opponent. In this case I allowed to divide the attacks as I found nothing in the Core or Errata banning that, but did I make the correct call?
  15. Hey, man, thanks! I'd absolutely love that. As I have a longer campaign in the works centred around different AdMech factions, anything Mars-related would be immensely helpful, so bring it on, if it's no bother.
×
×
  • Create New...