Jump to content

LoneKharnivore

Members
  • Content Count

    147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LoneKharnivore

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 03/09/1985
  1. LoneKharnivore

    My House Rules

    This is my point. Most of the Rogue Traders in the Expanse aren't yet dynasties, the largest number of them having been created by Marius Hax, current governor of the Calixis Sector. Um, nope, I never said anything of the sort, just that most RTs wouldn't have a cruiser. I mean, perhaps I'm misinterpreting all the bits that say things like but I don't think so. Can we agree to disagree and stop side-tracking this thread?
  2. LoneKharnivore

    Online "Virtual" Gaming - Token, what have you been using?

    I have top-down collections of ships and ordnance if you want them. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s80i89qm3vb9qj5/AACHLQ_yX_tslnj6qEDc3wO-a
  3. LoneKharnivore

    My House Rules

    Given that Warrants are not-infrequently given merely to get rid of political opponents, profligate sons and others too high-profile to simply execute, I think "wanting them to survive" is far from a given.I agree that around half of the ~30 or so named dynasties have LCs or greater but as the fluff suggests the existence of at least 60 Warrants in the Expanse, if not more, that changes the percentages somewhat. I always figured that the named dynasties represented only the most notable - the richest, the maddest, and the most archetypal - and that most RTs fell somewhere around the middle of the SP:PF ratio used during character creation. As for Battlefleet numbers, well, Imperial doctrine would seem to suggest that most deployments would consist of 1-3 destroyers and/or a frigate or two to every cruiser. BfK lists most of the capital ships of the Passage Watch but I assumed there were three or four times as many escorts, as they tend not to have individual names - eg "Echo 2" for a frigate of Echo squadron or "RX-117" for a destroyer. As always, though, YMMV; this is just my version of things.
  4. LoneKharnivore

    My House Rules

    As Nameless says, it's probably worth having a look at the original thread. There's a 'break point' for Mathhammer (where it starts to behave differently) at 7 points of armour - ie, what cruisers will tend to have after the -12. This means shooting at a cruiser is a very different ballgame to shooting at a lesser ship. Remember, Venk, that cruisers are rare beasts - maybe one in a hundred encounters, Errant will have better numbers on that - and running away, gathering forces and allies, working out an elaborate plan and then returning to face a mighty foe seems far more exciting than just being able to fight it straight away. That also has the corollary that if you are in a cruiser the GM has to keep throwing cruisers at you if he wants to make encounters at all challenging. I disagree with javcs' assertion that a Warrant automatically comes with a cruiser - in the early days, perhaps, but in the Time of Waning?
  5. LoneKharnivore

    Supplement or Rulebook with Astartes Stats

    ...why would you want to nerf them at all? The stats from Deathwatch actually begin to come close to portraying the living engines of destruction described in the fluff. Space Marines are genetically engineered killing machines who can survive wounds that would annihilate lesser mortals and still slay the enemies of man. I'm with SCKoNi, if your players do anything other than run the f*ck away they should die in very short order.
  6. LoneKharnivore

    My House Rules

    That's right, Venkelos, but what do you expect from a mighty ship-of-the-line versus a transport? Very few encounters will be that mismatched, and even if they meet only a moronic transport captain would do anything other than surrender when faced with such overwhelming force. Run some hypothetical transport v escort, or escort v escort, numbers and you'll see that when the opponents are relatively balanced the margins of victory can be quite tight.
  7. LoneKharnivore

    Critical Ship Damage

    Not to mention the ridiculous number of times they left a page reference as "see page XX" - to the point where they finally included the fabled page XX in the (I think) Malkavian clanbook. WW may have had pi**-poor proofreading but at least they acknowledged it
  8. LoneKharnivore

    What do you want in a RT2e?

    Oh, more than 37, surely. I don't see 1 PF as any kind of minimum contributing factor - I envisage your wealth to be made up of 0.3 PF + 0.01 PF + 0.52 PF, and so on. Things that are below the notice of a Rogue Trader.
  9. LoneKharnivore

    What do you want in a RT2e?

    My response to that is kind of in two parts. Firstly, with regards to "why hasn't it come up before?": the same question could be applied to my example. It hasn't come up before because it hasn't been relevant, for the same reason that the sixteen hundred other things that contribute to your PF haven't come up but may do in the future (because it would take too long to list everything); or it hasn't come up before because your factors only recently negotiated the contract, or because your agents only recently recruited the people (as you suggest); or it hasn't come up before because the deeds to the property or the contract for the safety deposit box or the chart for the warp route was buried somewhere in your dynasty's archives (given how much paperwork English aristocrats have built up over only a thousand years or so this is extremely believable). The other thing is that the same question can apply to, say, pre-existing contacts, or character knowledge only 'discovered' through a roll of the dice. I'd expect my players to detail some of their characters' connections - families, friends, colleagues, subordinates - before we play, and that goes double for the Rogue Trader. It's a Career that gives the player great power (and we all know what that comes with) so I'd want him/her to flesh out the major areas of their dynasty's interests and investments, the locations of major holdings, the specialities of their major factors and agents and so on. Secondly, I wouldn't allow a 'new warrant'-holder to have a PF of 40, or anything much at all. Even being an Imperial noble beforehand only gets you a +1 to your starting PF. I don't agree with the 'balanced' SP:PF table from the Core book, or even the limitations imposed by the Warrant Path from ItS; the SP and PF available to a starting group should be tailored to the type of game desired. Want to play a brand-new RT with a rickety old transport, a la Firefly? SP of 25-30 and a PF of <5, which will focus the game on social skills, wheeling and dealing, and a repair-over-replace mentality. Want to play the four-hundred-and-seventh holder of a mighty warrant, with the power and resources to carve out a physical empire in the Expanse? PF and SP of 90 (or for flavour a ship worth 90 SP, but they only get to choose what <20 of them are spent on) which will cater to both the most excessive munchkins and those who want a game of high-level political manoeuvring and intrigue without having to worry about shiny toys. As for the last bit in your post, I think we use PF in different ways. In my games, if an RT wanted some adamantium for use immediately he'd just buy some adamantium; the fact that he has stakes in an adamantium mining venture would only become relevant if a) he needed vast amounts for, say, founding a colony or b) if that interest came under attack. Otherwise it would just be a flow of Thrones into their coffers, or at most stock to trade, either bartered directly or liquidated to generate cash.
  10. There is an "AutoNav" .exe out there somewhere which I find fantastically useful.
  11. LoneKharnivore

    What do you want in a RT2e?

    This is all information that the players should decide - and if not them, the GM. Perhaps it's a case of "diff'rent strokes" but one of the strengths of RT as far as I'm concerned is the lack of concrete detail. The best RPing experiences I've had have come out of players thinking about this sort of thing and defining it to the GM rather than simply reading off a table. As a GM I want the game to go like this: Player: "I'll burn the PF." GM: "Okay, what does that represent?" Player: "Hmm, perhaps I had a couple of connections in an organisation this person's working against, I'll offer them up to him; the loss of PF represents that I won't be able to risk drawing on them at the same time as him, so I won't benefit from their info."
  12. LoneKharnivore

    Starting out

    Dem rouge traders, tradin' dat rouge.
  13. LoneKharnivore

    Starship Construction Utility RTSU v1.41 Published

    I like the addition of HA components but can take or leave homebrew stuff.
  14. LoneKharnivore

    Space Combat Revisited

    I may be in a minority but I actually prefer space battles to last a long time. The Age-of-Sail battles they are echoing went on for hours, with cannon blasting away at hulls that could take a vast amount of punishment. I took pains to have the rules down pat before we played and my group's first space combat lasted less than half an hour of real time; I really wouldn't want it any shorter. Each to their own though.
  15. LoneKharnivore

    Space Combat Revisited

    Really? The diameter of the Earth is still only two VU in that case (12, 472km). As for upping the range of broadsides... they're still exactly the same guns, there are just more of them.
×