Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. It's not even that it all goes to hell, it's just that, by RAW, we skip interesting encounters instead of doing anything with them. Roll Awareness to spot their munitions truck is coming up the rear. You didn't pass on a 30%? Well nevermind then. They continue to be well supplied. But knowing the truck is there, trying to bring your team around to do something about it, failing the 30% abstract-demolition roll, then losing a couple of comrades and your medic gets wounded... Now you have to fight out the massive battle with those consequences. Despite giving the Perception roll for free, I'm actually being less kind to my PCs.
  2. I really like the first third of No Surrender. Zero-G, No-Air combat. Attacking a massive space station filled with Severan Dominate. But I'd probably change the second and third chapters. Spoiler: It's Chaos. I'd change them to something different. Have an attacking Ork fleet. Have the severan surrender. Convince them that the Duke is a meanie. Just not the spoiler
  3. Oh, you're definitely doing it correctly. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It's even better that you're replacing just the sarge's Maneuver test with relevant skills from other PCs. By RAW, seemingly, only one player gets to take part. What I've been thinking about for my game is how to balance the spotlight on the sergeant. I am intending to not require tests for awareness, but put the emphasis on the command/maneuver tests to avoid taking fire while pursuing that goal. So in my hypothetical game, they easily see the commissar go down. When the sarge asks me if he can get over there, I say it depends: you could, but if you roll poorly your squad is going to take hits and waste ammunition. ((DoF x 1d5 ammo loss (very loose honour system on what that should be for special/heavy weapons) Number of hits based on DoF spread throughout the group)) The medic still needs to do his thing, which could also fail, but in the mean time they have lost strength and resources because of bad luck or a novice commander. That could go badly. It could go very badly. If they have been having trouble during the battle, they might decide not to risk the move at all. Or decide it's worth the risk and be big **** heroes. I'm very happy for my PCs to fail in their goals. I'm very happy for them to lose battles, make mistakes, or try a gamble that doesn't pay off. But I don't think there is anything interesting to be had in them failing a roll to spot a development. None of that is a criticism of your system, it's just how i would prefer to run a mass-combat system. More related to your system, is it deliberate that events like the gas attack only happen if the sarge makes his Awareness roll? I've got no problem with the schroedinger approach, but it did surprise me a little. I suppose that the gas attack would be too lethal if they didn't see it coming?
  4. I quite like it, but I wish the Sergeant wasn't gating everything there. On the one hand I agree completely with why you've done it. The Sarge runs the squad, is the squad/leader aware of or able to organise these goals. But another part of me thinks that the sarge is probably going to miss >half of those rolls, which means you've spent time preparing it for no payoff, and all of the effort to involve every player will fall apart if the medic never gets something to do. In mysteries, I eventually managed to stop asking for rolls to find clues. Nothing was ever gained by the investigators failing to find a book in a library, so I made it easy to find but tricky to work out how to use. The idea isn't Fail Forward, they can still easily mess everything up, but it's decisions and gambits that can go bad instead of purely random chance. Is there a way to take that approach? The opportunity is obvious (look! we all saw the commissar get wounded!), but doing something about it is tricky (can the sarge maneuver us over there without us taking fire?).
  5. I don't really play the command roll as whether their underlings decide to follow or ignore the command, but as an abstraction of whether the squad succeeds in that task. The PCs can't fail to issue a command, but they can fail to manage their underlings properly, and they can fail to take an objective without heavy losses.
  6. Despite being modern day technology, nuclear attacks seem very rare in 40k. I'd emphasise how incredibly destructive and contaminating the calamity is. Everything is stricken and damaged and irradiated. I'd want to run a survival horror type affair with them needing to keep finding medication to fight the radiation and fresh air canisters for void suits or rebreathers. Water purification tablets are a thing in 40k. I'd be venturing that nuclear fallout has fried most of the ways you can recharge those las cells; the local grid and most generators out of commision. You can charge em up in a fire, but fresh and reliable cells will be valuable. Basically run it as the above-ground parts of Metro 2033. Orcs, burnt and screaming in pain, but still mainly preoccupied with killing whatever they can get their hands on. Devastation and possibly psychic echoes of the dead and dying. Or hallucinations that you are having because of shock, trauma, contaminated food and limited oxygen. Rumours of an evac that might be true. The blast waking up a bunch of Necrons that had been running dormant. An AdMech outpost that was moderately shielded. Hardware is still running but all of the priests died in the strike. Something in the computer core could be the surviving consciousness of the head techpriest, or something that was meant to stay contained (AI?) Demons brought close to the surface by the extent of the death and mayhem. There's the usual post apocalyptic trope of running in to other survivors, the real monster is other people thing. Though I'd be more inclined to try and tempt the PCs in to robbing the other survivors rather than having the NPCs screw them over. No real reason, but my default approach is to have untrustworthy seeming people be usually trustworthy. I don't want the players to get in the habit of assuming NPCs are evil, and it just makes the rare betrayal more worthwhile.
  7. I just don't really think I needed a random pattern generator. Guidelines/suggestions yes, RNG no. I want a generator for things like solar systems, entire war fronts, logistical issues. Those are things where I'd like a random number generator to help me spark ideas. For a nonstandard pattern of weapon, I'd rather just put thought in to it if I was designing it -it should be achieving a specific effect if I've designed it- or have a general approach of 'players suggest a pro, gm suggest a con' You want a lasgun that has full auto fire? So you guys want suppressing and over watch, like a tactical strike team. Sure, but what if we cut its range drastically? A lassmg. You meant heavier than that? Cool, heavy lasgun, more heavy stubber than multilaser. but it needs to be braced like a heavy weapon. Or it chews through ammo even faster than normal. Or its unreliable. But then, I kinda prefer "bolt pistol with a laser sight and silver inlays" over the 7 patterns of bolt pistol that Inquisitor had.
  8. Very helpful answers, thank you. I particularly like the angle of substituting in different skills to suit the tactic/event actually taken. This essentially leads to the first time I've liked the execution of a Skill Challenge, which is no small feat. An unfolding battlefield feels a lot more concrete than "find the thieves guild", and the need to work as a single group might just keep the focus away from "I want to use Athletics to find the thieves guild" My concerns around the Command skill were not that my players min-ed that part of their minmaxing, but that penal colony soldiers with rolled stats weren't likely to have great command stats. In some ways this will make sense. I think we will find that they are very good commandos, where their skills and ingenuity and penchant for explosions can come in to play. But that leaves them poor line troopers, where their lack of heavier weapons and discipline will bite them. Which should push them to both weasel out of big fights, and really try hard for unusual tactics and advantages.
  9. Hello! I've been gming a few different games, including Rogue Trader and Dark Heresy, but I'm about to start my first Only War campaign. I've tried a few searches on these terms, so I'm sorry if they've come up before, I couldn't find them. Is there any general advice/info on the Battle Maneuver system in the corebook, as I'm a little hazy on how to run it. I like the general idea well enough, and it seems easier to make into a narrative/sandbox than the Exploration Challenges in Rogue Trader. But the forum searches barely show any mention of the system. My biggest questions: How does it play out when it focuses so heavily on a skill that the PCs wont have very high? With a small group, I'll be lucky to have anyone with a command above 30. Certainly not in the 50+ that seem needed for it to be even odds. How do you involve the whole squad? I like the idea of zooming out to "can you pull off a flanking maneuver", but what do the medic and the heavy gunner do while sarge rolls command? Other topic, loosely connected. i never really dealt with running out of ammunition in my other games. PCs were usually powerful or social enough that they never risked using all their bullets. But we've made lightly armed drop troopers, and I want to play up some of the survival issues of running out of fuel and ammo. 3. Does anyone have any neat ways of handling ammo for zoomed out scenes. So if the PCs were in a fight that used Maneuvers, or any other mass combat systems, how would you dock ammo? I know I can just pick a number and say they lose 10%, but does anyone have a trick/method that's worked for them?
  • Create New...