Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Professor Tanhauser

Cyborg?

Recommended Posts

I'd agree with Jargal, cyborgs have by definition replace biological parts with cybernetics. Although their connected to their armor, they're not part of it and it hasn't replaced part of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally speaking though, almost all artwork of 40k depicts characters with some degree of "cybernetic" something. Be it tubes in the head, metallic bits on skin, augmetic eye replacements, limbs, etc.

 

Obviously in terms of DW, there are many of those things as actual gameplay "things" a player can have (e.g. the benefits of augmetic limbs). But arguably, it should be considered appropriate for a player to say their character has some of those cybernetic stuff that is so common in the setting, and it just provides no net bonuses/negatives, with nothing actually interacting with them. So in my mind, any 40k character could essentially claim to be a cyborg if the player/GM deigns it to be so.

 

What is the issue driving this question? Is it just some terminology confusion, some question on how a character in a setting would react? Some rules mechanic saying cyborgs suffer more?

 

Still, wouldn't the interface of the Black Carapace with the Power Armour be considered a sort of "cybernetic" relationship. The Carapace does interact with the suit, doesn't it?

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...