Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
fog1234

Enemy Without Expansion

Recommended Posts

All this positivity is sickening. Can't you guys go back to complaining about what's not in the book and what "should have been" in the book?

 

Grumble, whine, grumble. Back in my day books were jus' writin'; none o' these fancy illustrations and tables, we had to draw our own and twice on sundays! And we had to cross reference between books just for the stats on one NPC. If they'd spent less time on all these pretty pictures, they'd have been able to put way more content in.[/old man]

 

Happy now? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More use for the Leadership aptitude, broken record I know, but my final hope is Enemies Beyond since Enemies Without doesn't have it and nothing else has been announced. Other than that, I'm sure the Enemies Without book is a worthy addition. Still waiting for it to appear in stores here.

Edited by Gridash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really great, thanks so much for letting me know what is in there. It actually looks like just what I need. More random Xenos stat blocks that aren't tied to a 40k faction. I suppose that is better suited in it own book to keep them all in one place though. Looks great otherwise. I'll definitely pick it up then.

Thanks again.

Smee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm finding a few issues:

 

The Imperial Navy background grants Weapon Training (Shock or Chain) and Weapon Training (SP), with a Combat Shotgun, and applicable melee weapon. Why doesn't the Adeptus Arbites give 2 Weapon Trainings and two weapons?

 

Furthermore, this seems to be as if 'Imperial Navy' means 'Naval Armsmen'. A naval pilot,  or a gunner on the gun decks, would want Weapon Training (Las) or (Launcher), not to mention (Heavy). Sure, Armsmen do maintain discipline with shock weapons, but Naval pilots are just as iconic, as are macrobattery-operators. I've no idea why chain is there. Sure, some might use chainswords, but so might some Imperial Guard, and they don't get Weapon Training (Chain) either.

 

Now, that's all odd, but then...

 

The Ace, expert at the Operate (and Survival) skill, doesn't get the Fieldcraft Aptitude, which is needed to make these skills cheaper. That means that, understandably, Imperial Guard make for the best drivers and horse-riders or whatever. However, it means that Aces from the Imperial Navy, Rogue Trader Fleets, the Adeptus Mechanicus etc etc, can't get cheap Operate advances... unless they come from a Death World.

 

Personally, here I'd remove the Tech Aptitude for Fieldcraft. Perhaps switch Willpower for Intelligence.

 

Of course, there's also the new Homeworlds, which have non-stat based Aptitudes, which basically makes them better than the regular Homeworlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could argue the Naval background can represent either Armsmen or Officers (including pilots), with the former taking shock weapons and the latter the chain weapon. SP training is useful for both, although an officer is more likely to wield a pistol.

 

However, it means that Aces from the Imperial Navy, Rogue Trader Fleets, the Adeptus Mechanicus etc etc, can't get cheap Operate advances... unless they come from a Death World.

 

Keep in mind you can switch out any double Aptitude for something of your own choosing, too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could argue the Naval background can represent either Armsmen or Officers (including pilots), with the former taking shock weapons and the latter the chain weapon. SP training is useful for both, although an officer is more likely to wield a pistol.

 

However, it means that Aces from the Imperial Navy, Rogue Trader Fleets, the Adeptus Mechanicus etc etc, can't get cheap Operate advances... unless they come from a Death World.

 

Keep in mind you can switch out any double Aptitude for something of your own choosing, too!

You can only switch out for statistic Aptitudes. You can't gain Tech, Fieldcraft, Social, Knowledge, Leadership, Psyker, Finesse, Offence, or Defence. This access to harder-to-gain Aptitudes (especially the Research Station one, which is amazing) makes the Enemies Without Homeworlds better than the others. It also means that the best Navy pilots are the ones from Deathworlds.

 

Regarding Weapon Training: Why are they trained in more weapons than Arbitrators? An Arbitrator should probably have Low-Tech (Shields), Shock (Shock Mauls) and Solid Projectile, or at least two of the three. They get one.

 

Personally, I'd give Arbitrators Low-Tech and Solid Projectile, but with the option to start with a shock maul, which they'd need to spend XP on to know how to use.

 

The Close Quarters combat, I suppose I can get - it's good for fighting on board a ship, and also reflects Imperial Naval strategy for ship battles - launch torpedoes and get in really close for macrobattery broadsides. The proficiencies are kind of dumb, though. A pilot doesn't need a chainsword or shock maul, he needs to know how to fire the rocket launchers and lascannons on his Fury. The guys on the macrobatteries live in fear of Shock weapons, and would never get to lay hands on either Shock or Chain weapons, never mind be trained in them.

 

If a Navy background reflects Officers, Pilots, and Armsmen, why do they get Solid Projectile and Chain or Shock? An Imperial Guard Officer should have Chain, but they don't get that option. They have only Las, and Low-Tech. The very basic, everyone learns how to shoot a lasgun or stab with a bayonet, sort of thing. Officers pay XP for chainswords.

Edited by bluntpencil2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can only switch out for statistic Aptitudes.

 

Huh, I missed that. Sorry.

 

Regarding Weapon Training: Why are they trained in more weapons than Arbitrators?

 

For the same reason Imperial Guard characters are trained in more weapons.

 

No, I don't think it makes sense; yes, I would change it. But that's more a criticism for the Arbites background rather than the Navy one. I'd give them SP and Shock, for shotguns and mauls, as those are what I'd deem the most characteristic Arbites equipment.

 

If a Navy background reflects Officers, Pilots, and Armsmen, why do they get Solid Projectile and Chain or Shock? An Imperial Guard Officer should have Chain, but they don't get that option. They have only Las, and Low-Tech. The very basic, everyone learns how to shoot a lasgun or stab with a bayonet, sort of thing. Officers pay XP for chainswords.

 

Like I said, SP and Chain for the officers (pistol and chainsword) or SP and shock for the armsmen (shotgun and baton).

 

IG needs the Low-Tech proficiency to use their knives and bayonets (aka spears). You could argue that Chain should at least be an optional alternative to Low-Tech, but truth be told I'd consider any Guardsman who doesn't know how to wield a combat knife a bit weird. Yes, even officers. Knives and bayonets just sound a lot more like "required knowledge" than chainswords, especially when these can be replaced by equivalent arms using the Low-Tech proficiency.

At best one could argue that the Navy background should just offer Low-Tech as well; junior officers could then choose a nice mono saber. Not sure that's truly worth pushing as a criticism, though, as we're delving into personal interpretation here (= what weapons seem most fitting for which sort of character).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There still remains the problem that the Navy background doesn't make you terribly good at being a pilot (Ace should have Fieldcraft!). Okay, yeah, you're trained in the skill, sure. But... well... yeah.

 

The best Naval Pilots are the following: Deathworlders come out first(aptitude: Fieldcraft, Agility +), then Hive Worlders(Agility +) and Garden Worlders (Agility +), and maybe Frontier Worlders (Ballistic Skill +). Void Born? No. Not at all. They're pretty weak as far as pilots go.

 

Perhaps making Operate based off Agility and Tech would be the easiest solution there. That would, in turn, make the best tank drivers come from Forge Worlds. (Edit: No, I'm wrong there. They'd still be better coming from Death Worlds, Hive Worlds and Garden Worlds, due to higher Agility).

Edited by bluntpencil2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the starting skills of somebody who picked Imperial Navy? And in what direction does their background bonus go?

 

People were complaining about the Imperial Guard background before as well, because it didn't have any weapon-orientated aptitudes such as offense/defense/finesse.

 

The thing is, if you look at their starting skills, background bonus, equipment, ... the background still makes sense. It's not because somebody got drafted into the Imperial Guard that he automatically has natural talent to be a tough mean soldier. They get basic training and then enter the meatgrinder. If you can't fight properly, you'll still serve as good cannon fodder to keep the enemy occupied. So imho the background is fitting. 

 

Maybe that's the same with the Imperial Navy background.

 

It does seem weird that Ace doesn't get fieldcraft, but I need to see the full picture first. 

Edited by Gridash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Naval skills make sense, but the talents are a bit much. They're better Arbitrators than Arbitrators, basically. The Aptitudes, well, they're better fighters, and physically stronger than Guardsmen, but there are arguments there that don't bother me so much.

 

The Ace lacking Fieldcraft is an immense oversight, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to Weapon Training, did DH do away with the rule that says a character is counted as trained in any weapon mounted on a vehicle if he is part of Vehicle's crew? If that's still in there, then Naval Pilots don't need any proficiencies to represent their vehicle based weaponry. That doesn't extend to when he is not crewing the vehicle. Just because he can fire his ride's lascannon doesn't mean he can shoot one on foot. Counterintuitive, but that's the way it worked in Only War.

If the Ace role doesn't have Fieldcraft, that's going to get Errata'd. There's no way that's not a huge oversight. Having not gotten my hands on the book yet, I cannot say for sure, but if feels like Finesse probably was supposed to be Fieldcraft and somebody done goofed.

Edited by Cripple X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without Finesse, however, he'll suck at shooting the guns on his vehicle.

 

Better to remove Tech, really, since this Role also suits horse-riders. Maybe switch out Willpower for Intelligence, so you can still get Tech-Use.

 

Regarding Weapon Training, nope, you need the talents. 'Vehicle' class weapons are vehicle weapons which, like Basic and Pistol weapons, don't also require proficiency in Heavy Weapons, on top of Las, Bolt or whatever. However, most weapons on vehicles aren't Vehicle class... they're mostly Heavy.

Edited by bluntpencil2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Weapon Training, nope, you need the talents. 'Vehicle' class weapons are vehicle weapons which, like Basic and Pistol weapons, don't also require proficiency in Heavy Weapons, on top of Las, Bolt or whatever. However, most weapons on vehicles aren't Vehicle class... they're mostly Heavy.

 

Actually, if you look at page 253 of the core rulebook in the vehicle attacks section you can read:

 

 

 A character with the appropriate Operate skill for a vehicle does not need specific weapon proficiencies to fire any weapons mounted on that type of vehicle without penalty. It is assumed that his expertise covers weapon use as well.

Edited by Mancor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ace lacking Fieldcraft is an immense oversight, though.

 

I feel like this could just be "fallout" from the Operate skill originally not accounting for space vehicles. If you look at the Fieldcraft aptitude and most of the associated skills and talents, you'll see that it refers mainly to adapting to other environments, survival, stuff like getting through in the desert or a jungle. Or, yeah, driving a tank across this terrain.

 

It actually makes very little sense for the operation of spacecraft to be based on the same parameters. Naval crews shouldn't be better at surviving in a desert, in fact they should have more issues than your average person as they don't even get to walk on a planet all that much.

 

By all rights, the Operate skill for spacecraft should use a different Aptitude, possibly Perception (reaction times and peripheral vision) or Intelligence (interfacing with the machinery). This would also solve the ridiculous problem of Deathworlders having an automatic edge here.

 

 

That being said, perhaps we should also keep in mind that a background doesn't actually have to mean that a person is very good at it. It depends on what that background represents, and Naval crews as well as officers are generally not picked for their skills, but either because they just happen to be around (press-ganged into the crew) or because they come from a fancy noble household (officer training) -- and controlling a starship is a difficult thing to learn, more difficult than learning to drive a ground vehicle. It kind of sucks from a gameplay perspective, but it's not actually an in-universe issue.

 

 

 

A character with the appropriate Operate skill for a vehicle does  not  need  specific  weapon  proficiencies  to  fire  any weapons mounted on that type of vehicle without penalty. It is assumed that his expertise covers weapon use as well.

 

I actually missed that as well, but it makes perfect sense. Somebody who knows how to shoot a rifle doesn't have to know how to operate a tank turret, and vice versa.

Edited by Lynata

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Ace lacking Fieldcraft is an immense oversight, though.

 

I feel like this could just be "fallout" from the Operate skill originally not accounting for space vehicles. If you look at the Fieldcraft aptitude and most of the associated skills and talents, you'll see that it refers mainly to adapting to other environments, survival, stuff like getting through in the desert or a jungle. Or, yeah, driving a tank across this terrain.

 

It actually makes very little sense for the operation of spacecraft to be based on the same parameters. Naval crews shouldn't be better at surviving in a desert, in fact they should have more issues than your average person as they don't even get to walk on a planet all that much.

 

By all rights, the Operate skill for spacecraft should use a different Aptitude, possibly Perception (reaction times and peripheral vision) or Intelligence (interfacing with the machinery). This would also solve the ridiculous problem of Deathworlders having an automatic edge here.

 

 

 

It sounds like the aptitude system was written without considering anything beyond the core rulebook, causing it to creak when FFG implements other iconic parts of 40k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like the aptitude system was written without considering anything beyond the core rulebook, causing it to creak when FFG implements other iconic parts of 40k.

 

Kind of like a lot of elements in DH1 core broke down as soon as they introduced Space Marines -- though that was a Black Industries thing already, not FFG.

 

I suppose that's the trap when you design a system around a specific theme rather than the universe as a whole, and then add the rest as an afterthought.

Edited by Lynata

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It sounds like the aptitude system was written without considering anything beyond the core rulebook, causing it to creak when FFG implements other iconic parts of 40k.

 

Kind of like a lot of elements in DH1 core broke down as soon as they introduced Space Marines -- though that was a Black Industries thing already, not FFG.

 

I suppose that's the trap when you design a system around a specific theme rather than the universe as a whole, and then add the rest as an afterthought.

 

 

The difference is that Space Marines are outside the scope of a playable Dark Heresy character. If someone asked about playing one while DH1 was being written an answer of "they aren't meant to be playable, so it doesn't matter if the system can't handle them as PC" would be reasonable. Playable space marines are outside the theme of Dark Heresy as it's about humans fighting the horrors of the galaxy.

 

The aptitude system is creaking when people try to build human characters with it. Not Space Marines, just humans specialized in specific areas.

 

At least aptitudes can be easily removed with house rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aptitude system is creaking when people try to build human characters with it. Not Space Marines, just humans specialized in specific areas.

 

Meh, it only creaks when you run it roughshod. I doubt there's a set of roleplaying rules in existence that doesn't. There's a lot of hate for Aptitudes, but for me hating on them is like hating on Pun-Pun in 3.5 D&D...sure, in theory the game is broken, but in actual practice it kinda works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Ace lacking Fieldcraft is an immense oversight, though.

 

I feel like this could just be "fallout" from the Operate skill originally not accounting for space vehicles. If you look at the Fieldcraft aptitude and most of the associated skills and talents, you'll see that it refers mainly to adapting to other environments, survival, stuff like getting through in the desert or a jungle. Or, yeah, driving a tank across this terrain.

 

It actually makes very little sense for the operation of spacecraft to be based on the same parameters. Naval crews shouldn't be better at surviving in a desert, in fact they should have more issues than your average person as they don't even get to walk on a planet all that much.

 

By all rights, the Operate skill for spacecraft should use a different Aptitude, possibly Perception (reaction times and peripheral vision) or Intelligence (interfacing with the machinery). This would also solve the ridiculous problem of Deathworlders having an automatic edge here.

 

 

That being said, perhaps we should also keep in mind that a background doesn't actually have to mean that a person is very good at it. It depends on what that background represents, and Naval crews as well as officers are generally not picked for their skills, but either because they just happen to be around (press-ganged into the crew) or because they come from a fancy noble household (officer training) -- and controlling a starship is a difficult thing to learn, more difficult than learning to drive a ground vehicle. It kind of sucks from a gameplay perspective, but it's not actually an in-universe issue.

 

You seem to sort of switch part way through here between talking about role and background. The problem is with Ace not with a background.

A background doesn't mean a character needs to be good at anything in particular since, as you point out, in-universe backgrounds are often forced or born into, but a role should probably mean that a character is good at those things since it is described as how the character chooses to approach problems and tells you what you have an "aptitude" for. After all, Aces are described as being the best pilots in the Imperium. That's pretty much it's whole description and yet every assassin is better at it because ace got tech/finesse instead fieldcraft.

Navigation is another skill that would be appropriate for aces but that also requires fieldcraft. So at minimum you have all three operate skills, all three navigation skills and survival that seem like they are THE skills for Aces and yet they pay more than assassins. Its a problem that Aces are advertised as the operate based role but aren't even as good at it as another role just in a straight role vs role comparison, not even factoring in anything to do with homeworld or background combinations.

What even is the point of this role?! A navy assassin is a better pilot than a navy ace, pretty much all guardsmen aces are better pilots than all navy aces, a deathworlder ace, no matter the background is a better pilot than a void born navy ace, all pretty strange and nonsensical and I'm sure there are more examples.

 

Not giving Aces fieldcraft is as mechanically problematic as it would have been if they had chosen not to give sages knowledge.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The difference is that Space Marines are outside the scope of a playable Dark Heresy character.

 

That was only true until the Daemonhammer supplement allowed people to play Grey Knights.

 

But it also was an issue because NPCs suddenly became invulnerable. It was literally impossible for a certain Space Marine character in the "Purge the Unclean" adventure to die, simply because the attacking Dark Eldar had no way to overcome his 16 points of damage reduction.

 

Coincidentally, this is how we eventually got Horde rules. They started out as a houserule on the old pre-FFG forums.

 

 

Meh, it only creaks when you run it roughshod. I doubt there's a set of roleplaying rules in existence that doesn't. There's a lot of hate for Aptitudes, but for me hating on them is like hating on Pun-Pun in 3.5 D&D...sure, in theory the game is broken, but in actual practice it kinda works.

 

Personally, I love Aptitudes. But that doesn't mean that it's perfect. In this case, though, I actually see the issue not in the Aptitudes system, but rather that Operate is the same for ground- as well as spacecraft. It wouldn't be too hard to make it an extra Skill.

 

But yes, it's worth to remember that most systems have issues. The more complex something is, the greater the chance it's going to break down somewhere.

 

 

You seem to sort of switch part way through here between talking about role and background. The problem is with Ace not with a background.

 

Yeah, sorry -- my train of thought got jumbled somewhere there.

 

If the Ace was defined simply as being "the pilot", it would be easy to justify, either by saying that only a character's current Skills (how good are you when taking the Elite Advance) were of value during selection, or even that a character's Skills are not that important because their career gets decided on a different basis. Yet I'd agree that the Ace should be defined not only by how good they are at a point, but also how easy it is for them to grow accustomed to the machine they're flying. Literally, their aptitude for what they're doing.

 

I'm still convinced that giving them Fieldcraft sounds wrong, simply because of what else is attached to it. I'd much rather see Operate Spacecraft become its own Skill with a combination that actually makes sense (like Agility + Tech).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem unhappy that the Ace doesn't have Fieldcraft. but I've seen nobody complain that the Warrior doesn't get Finesse (linked to many shooty and dodge-y things).

 

True. I noticed that a lot of complaints seem to be based on the assumption that having both Aptitudes for an advance should be the default, when it's really more like an exception, reserved for special affinity.

 

However, I would acquiesce that the Warrior is a rather "basic" role that is supposed to represent a lot of things, whereas the Ace is pretty much defined solely by how well they're flying. Plus, the Warrior seems to be more of an allrounder grunt with only average Ballistic Skill; people who want to become snipers have the Assassin to pick.

Edited by Lynata

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...