|
I think Dodge should be replaced by some kind of Threat mechanic that determines if enemies bother shooting at you or not, with heavily armored dudes automatically having a higher default threat, but damage you cause boosting your threat level. So at the start, the meat-tanks eat all the firepower, but as the assassin starts picking people off, people start throwing shots his way. Then again, a good GM would probably handle that without needing a threat score, but... this way would let people happily minmax to their hearts content.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
Threat is real, it's called "who did the GM decide to shoot." Any rules to approximate it would be clunky, bullshit book-keeping.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Elukka posted:Anyone share my view that dodge is kind of a poo poo mechanic? Evasion in WH40KRP is terrible because it is completely and totally compulsory to being a good fighter. For the most part, anything that lowers your evasion to increase your durability is a sucker's bet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:Threat is real, it's called "who did the GM decide to shoot." Any rules to approximate it would be clunky, bullshit book-keeping. As opposed to any other RPG mechanic ever? You could probably design an interesting combat engine that incorporated some method of "drawing aggro" in that fashion, though I don't know if 40K combat would benefit from it precisely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Actually in big rear end combats a "threat" mechanic would help me as a GM to figure out the "aww jeez now who the enemies will shoot" part while keeping things fair. Unfortunately I cannot see such a mechanic existing in 40k rpg games since the enemies are very varied and most of the time completely crazy. And there's already too many loving rules as it is. e: I could see something like that for specific class archetypes, instead of talents available to everyone. Like an Ogryn bodyguard or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
FireSight posted:I think Dodge should be replaced by some kind of Threat mechanic that determines if enemies bother shooting at you or not, with heavily armored dudes automatically having a higher default threat, but damage you cause boosting your threat level. So at the start, the meat-tanks eat all the firepower, but as the assassin starts picking people off, people start throwing shots his way. Then again, a good GM would probably handle that without needing a threat score, but... this way would let people happily minmax to their hearts content. Wait, so the aggro thing from army of two?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
As I see it the issues with 40K RPG evasion are:
Fixing all of this would be a massive undertaking, but as preliminary steps I'd recommend these in conjunction:
NGDBSS fucked around with this message at 11:47 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
One of the other problems comes from a completely different assumption between WHFRP2e and WH40KRP; in WHFRP2e, every single weapon did d10+Damage Value and nothing reduced armor value by more than 2 points out of a possible 5 (6 with extremely rare super armor). The average hit did a base of d10+3 with the idea being that an average human could handle that hit with decent odds of taking either a light wound or a heavier one, and that his armor would not only provide damage mitigation but an increasing chance of tanking the whole hit. The AVs were thus tuned to equal the rough odds of a 6+, 5+, or 4+ save against an equal strength hit. The AVs in 40kRP are done similar (tuned against the chances of a TB3 character to soak a d10+3 Pen0 hit), but the system introduced multiple d10 weapons, weapons with large inherent damage modifiers, and a hell of a lot more ways to break AV. The multiple d10s also made the critical hit rule a hell of a lot more common, as did the addition of easy ways to get multiple hits (Full auto back in DH1e) and making Tearing (formerly Impact) way, way more common. Whereas having 20 Wounds, heavy armor, and a decent Toughness was a huge deal in WHFRP2e and pretty much marked you as a total badass if you ever got there, there are so many ways to break your armor and so many ways to break the old Righteous Fury rules that it's not really going to save you if you can't dodge well in 40kRP. Introducing a ton more variance *and* loving around with the number of damage dice when the damage system's 'special attacks' are triggered by damage dice was probably not the best idea in the transition, and thus you're much more likely to end up in situations where you either have the potential to get lucky (or unlucky) and vaporize a guy, or you do so much base damage that it's not even a matter of luck, if you get hit by that shot from a Legionaire's powerfist you're just plain out. Just look at the fact that every major villain or boss in the rulebooks has to have 60-80 wounds now to even last a round of combat (and that doesn't always do it), something no PC can actually accomplish. It's also why Sound Con has become such a bad investment; a single hitpoint doesn't do poo poo and the cost for that single hitpoint has actually increased from DH1e! The gist of this drat wall of text is they never retuned the system to fit the new assumptions of later games and I'm still salty about it, because the enemy stats show they obviously understand poo poo has changed completely but they never seem to really apply it to the characters. Evasion is basically the bandaid on a system that doesn't work. 40kRP is nothing but a series of bandaids and hacks and patches by this point. Night10194 fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
sound constitution would be worth it if it gave you like, +5 wounds or something.NGDBSS posted:(Parry doesn't block bullets, but that doesn't mean poo poo when you can charge into something's face and deny it the ability to even shoot worth a drat without eating a free attack.) Gunslinger+pistols+acrobatics+dodge!  Use autopistols loaded with manstoppers or krak grenades for extra hilarity as you put a +30 or +40 counter attack into the guy who tried to shank you.
Ronwayne fucked around with this message at 09:46 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
quote is not edit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
That seems like a rather large quantity of resources to spend propping up a not-so-great and/or limited-supply combat suite. (Plus it only really works once before the tactics start changing to compensate.) Edit: Though this does remind me that having two different evasion skills is another wonky piece of the puzzle. I know Eclipse Phase (another lethal game) sticks with one evasion skill and halves your chances against guns specifically to encourage ranged combat over melee, but 40K seems to at least want to try having melee and range on equal footing. @Night10194: It seems like FFG is slowly trying to drag the line into something less wonky, considering the evolution of various systems here and there. (It's especially funny to look at Ascension, where the designers had so many little patches because they were trying to get out from under the problems that DH1E Core had presented.) Though given the winds of hearsay I'm not certain what's been keeping things from moving faster - the writers or the fanbase? NGDBSS fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
NGDBSS posted:@Night10194: It seems like FFG is slowly trying to drag the line into something less wonky, considering the evolution of various systems here and there. (It's especially funny to look at Ascension, where the designers had so many little patches because they were trying to get out from under the problems that DH1E Core had presented.) Though given the winds of hearsay I'm not certain what's been keeping things from moving faster - the writers or the fanbase? Considering the absolute clusterfuck that was the 2e beta, I'd say the fanbase is the problem. The original 2e beta rules had some innovative ideas that, while not perfect, at least tried to get away from 1e's problems. A very vocal part of the fanbase were unhappy with such drastic changes, and rather than work with FFG to fix the new rules, the old adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" was oft quoted. Eventually FFG relented and 2e was released as Only War: Inquisition edition. If you need to remind yourself that you have a terrible hobby, the beta forums are still accessible: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/forum/329-dark-heresy-second-edition-beta/
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
MaliciousOnion posted:Considering the absolute clusterfuck that was the 2e beta, I'd say the fanbase is the problem. The original 2e beta rules had some innovative ideas that, while not perfect, at least tried to get away from 1e's problems. A very vocal part of the fanbase were unhappy with such drastic changes, and rather than work with FFG to fix the new rules, the old adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" was oft quoted. Eventually FFG relented and 2e was released as Only War: Inquisition edition. To expand on this, the original beta had a lot of ideas to solve issues brought up in this thread. With the action point system, you could commit resources to attacking/movement, or save them to allow multiple evasions. Evasions weren't binary negations (which introduced its own problems). Weapon Pen values were slashed across the board (meltagun had a pen of 3). They reworked damage into a system that, while cumbersome as implemented, did fix the fine/wounded/dead rocket tag of previous editions (Sound Constitution didn't give you more wounds, so there wasn't this hit point sponge arms race). PC starting options were mathematically, transparently balanced against one another, so there were no wrong or false choices, and you could easily create your own options that followed the same rules. When the fanbase (which is a toxic cesspool on the official forums) rejected all of the improvements, FFG threw the baby out with the bathwater and literally copy/pasted OW. I mean literally - the beta's proofreading subforum was full of references to OW concepts they changed/removed for DH.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
NGDBSS posted:That seems like a rather large quantity of resources to spend propping up a not-so-great and/or limited-supply combat suite. (Plus it only really works once before the tactics start changing to compensate.) Edit: Though this does remind me that having two different evasion skills is another wonky piece of the puzzle. I know Eclipse Phase (another lethal game) sticks with one evasion skill and halves your chances against guns specifically to encourage ranged combat over melee, but 40K seems to at least want to try having melee and range on equal footing. I found it was pretty handy for a BS based scout typed build. Versatility was had with stealth+perception stuff, and when your BS is high enough, just picking up a longlas or sniper rifle is enough for you to dual-role. Plus this and stealth-sniper talent meant its hard to change tactics when one PC is putting out three suppressive fire attacks a turn. Ammo/reloading was dealt with just by carrying several pistols and dropping the empty ones and quick drawing fresh ones. I managed to run it for several thousand exp without being seriously hurt while the rest of the group was going into crits left and right. Later I picked up sentry and switched to just walking up behind people with stealth and firing a multilas at point blank. Also it was great to infuriate melee types by acrobating out and staying exactly at 3meters away for point blank bonuses. It also means they have to take a half action to re-engage you and since the min charge distance in OW is 4m, you can kite pretty well. Supply was a bitch at times, I'll admit, but all the guns worth a drat with the arguable exception of the heavy stubber have ammo scarce or higher. And I'll stop now due to HEY THIS ONE TIME MY CHARACTER- 
Ronwayne fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Maybe the best way to address dodge is to like remove it but adjust total damage soak by agility? Like your total soak is armor+TB+AB? I guess you'd have to adjust weapon damage though. Maybe tweak aim? Half action aim reduces AB soak by half, full round removes completely. The only other idea is to have dodge/parry reduce the to hit DC? For every 10 in total dodge/parry reduce the to hit by 5? That way it's not some extra roll? GM confession: if an NPC doesn't have dodge trained i just don't roll dodges for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
Ronwayne posted:sound constitution would be worth it if it gave you like, +5 wounds or something. Sound constitution is such a terrible buy, I don't know if I have ever actually taken it (or seen it taken). +5 wounds would make it respectable, but even something like +TB would make it more useful and interesting. The Wound situation in the games makes Dodge all the worse, because if you have lovely wounds (and really its just a matter of how lovely they are) your only option is to pile onto Dodge and hope you never get hit - there is no point sinking tons of experience into trying to build your Toughness and Wounds points, because for what it takes to raise you a handful of points you could have a decent dodge instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
MaliciousOnion posted:Considering the absolute clusterfuck that was the 2e beta, I'd say the fanbase is the problem. The original 2e beta rules had some innovative ideas that, while not perfect, at least tried to get away from 1e's problems. A very vocal part of the fanbase were unhappy with such drastic changes, and rather than work with FFG to fix the new rules, the old adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" was oft quoted. Eventually FFG relented and 2e was released as Only War: Inquisition edition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
NGDBSS posted:Are those beta rules still around to be found? I've heard the occasional rumor about them, but not actually seen them beyond one short revision document that looked a lot like OW++. FFG pulled them from Drivethru after that update so you'd have to find someone who still has it. (is this even  ?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
NGDBSS posted:@Night10194: It seems like FFG is slowly trying to drag the line into something less wonky, considering the evolution of various systems here and there. (It's especially funny to look at Ascension, where the designers had so many little patches because they were trying to get out from under the problems that DH1E Core had presented.) Though given the winds of hearsay I'm not certain what's been keeping things from moving faster - the writers or the fanbase? I actually take the view that FFG is more of the problem than the base system. Dark Heresy 1e has definite flaws (like full auto and some of the way money was handled, the introduction of multi-die weapons to a base system that was absolutely not designed for them, etc) but it works for what it's trying to do, well enough to be a fun game. Actually, saying FFG is the problem is the wrong way to put it: The difference in design assumption between Black Library and FFG, combined with parts of the fanbase (not the parts here, you guys are cool dudes and dudettes) being unwilling to accept change and stuck on the insane idea that the gamelines are totally all backwards compatible (they're not), lead to a situation where like you said, FFG is trying to bring the game into line with what they want it to be but they really can't try to change anything too heavily or their fans go ballistic. It isn't that FFG are bad designers or whatever, it's that they're shackled to a system that doesn't do what they want it to do and was designed to do something completely different and the dumbasses on their forums don't want anything to change. FFG's designers aren't dumb or bad; you can tell they're aware of the mismatches and often trying to fix it, but it sorta reminds me of a put upon GM trying to mutilate d20 into doing what they want because they can't get their group to play anything but 3.PF.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:The gist of this drat wall of text is they never retuned the system to fit the new assumptions of later games and I'm still salty about it, because the enemy stats show they obviously understand poo poo has changed completely but they never seem to really apply it to the characters. Evasion is basically the bandaid on a system that doesn't work. 40kRP is nothing but a series of bandaids and hacks and patches by this point. A rules system as bloated and outdated as the Imperium setting it takes place in NAILED IT 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
No, that's the excuse Exalted uses and its terrible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I actually take the view that FFG is more of the problem than the base system. Dark Heresy 1e has definite flaws (like full auto and some of the way money was handled, the introduction of multi-die weapons to a base system that was absolutely not designed for them, etc) but it works for what it's trying to do, well enough to be a fun game. Actually, saying FFG is the problem is the wrong way to put it: The difference in design assumption between Black Library and FFG, combined with parts of the fanbase (not the parts here, you guys are cool dudes and dudettes) being unwilling to accept change and stuck on the insane idea that the gamelines are totally all backwards compatible (they're not), lead to a situation where like you said, FFG is trying to bring the game into line with what they want it to be but they really can't try to change anything too heavily or their fans go ballistic. It isn't that FFG are bad designers or whatever, it's that they're shackled to a system that doesn't do what they want it to do and was designed to do something completely different and the dumbasses on their forums don't want anything to change. FFG's designers aren't dumb or bad; you can tell they're aware of the mismatches and often trying to fix it, but it sorta reminds me of a put upon GM trying to mutilate d20 into doing what they want because they can't get their group to play anything but 3.PF. This is it exactly. I can't tell if it's their fans that are the problem or that they listen to their fans. Personally I think they should have ripped off the bandaid and written a good system, critics be damned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Clanpot Shake posted:This is it exactly. I can't tell if it's their fans that are the problem or that they listen to their fans. Fallout 3 managed to kick the worst of the old grogs to the curb. No Mutants Allowed shrieking like a pig being eaten alive by bears was a thing of beauty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I actually take the view that FFG is more of the problem than the base system. Dark Heresy 1e has definite flaws (like full auto and some of the way money was handled, the introduction of multi-die weapons to a base system that was absolutely not designed for them, etc) but it works for what it's trying to do, well enough to be a fun game. Actually, saying FFG is the problem is the wrong way to put it: The difference in design assumption between Black Library and FFG, combined with parts of the fanbase (not the parts here, you guys are cool dudes and dudettes) being unwilling to accept change and stuck on the insane idea that the gamelines are totally all backwards compatible (they're not), lead to a situation where like you said, FFG is trying to bring the game into line with what they want it to be but they really can't try to change anything too heavily or their fans go ballistic. It isn't that FFG are bad designers or whatever, it's that they're shackled to a system that doesn't do what they want it to do and was designed to do something completely different and the dumbasses on their forums don't want anything to change. FFG's designers aren't dumb or bad; you can tell they're aware of the mismatches and often trying to fix it, but it sorta reminds me of a put upon GM trying to mutilate d20 into doing what they want because they can't get their group to play anything but 3.PF. No offence dude but do you reckon you could maybe hit the return key a few times during your posts? Your points make sense, I'd just like to be able to read them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Ronwayne posted:Fallout 3 managed to kick the worst of the old grogs to the curb. No Mutants Allowed shrieking like a pig being eaten alive by bears was a thing of beauty. God that is so true, I remember those days. I was happy with what Bethesda did, and usually am with changes and updates to things. Though I was weird in that my first introduction to fallout was the game brotherhood of steel, which got me to buy the (by then) older fallout games. Like yeah, they should have just made the system they wanted. What I have problems with are those that hate 2.0 because it ended up not being the change they could believe in. DH2 is no less playable than the current stuff we had, and made some good changes, like the social interaction stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
MaliciousOnion posted:Considering the absolute clusterfuck that was the 2e beta, I'd say the fanbase is the problem. The original 2e beta rules had some innovative ideas that, while not perfect, at least tried to get away from 1e's problems. A very vocal part of the fanbase were unhappy with such drastic changes, and rather than work with FFG to fix the new rules, the old adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" was oft quoted. Eventually FFG relented and 2e was released as Only War: Inquisition edition. Haha, yes, "not perfect." For anyone believing that DH2 v1 was a great system that was unfairly shut down by those mean ol' forum whiners, I would highly encourage you to track down a copy of the v1 beta rules and read these forums. The first draft of the rules was "innovative," but that innovation seemed to be directed at serving a desire for novelty, rather than offering any genuine improvements over the old system. The new system also had massive balance issues, and for every problem "solved" it tended to introduce two new ones of its own. Problems that were not going to be fixed in FFGs original timeline for revisions- these were the sorts of thing that took them multiple iterations of the rules across 4 games to get hammered out previously. The v1.0 of the DH2 rules were a mechanical mess that ensured the DH2.0 would be at least as much of a broken rules clusterfuck as the original Black Library version of DH1. It also broke all backwards compatibility with the mechanical 40k material from other lines, and it did not do so in the service of any worthwhile goal, either articulated or implied (like providing a system that better handled the scaling issues you get when trying to run Deathwatch in the 40k RPG system). If you wanted a new system to play with as a fun toy it was an attractive change, but if you wanted a system to run DH games in that was less of a clunky piece of poo poo than the original 1.0 version it was an absolutely huge disappointment. I'm not going to deny that I wish they'd done far more with it when they went back to the drawing board after the largely negative response the first iteration of the rules received, but characterizing the development history of DH2 as "mean ol' grogs block the implementation of a Glorious New System" is a pretty bad mischaracterization of what happened. DH2 beta v1 might have been somewhat new, but that newness should not be confused with it being in any way better. That lack of quality with the new system was recognized, and the complete failure of the (also very vocal) proponents of the new system to explain how that would be fixed and/or how any of those issues would be made up by other improvements to the game is the reason FFG ultimately cut ship and went back to a game based on the old rules. Clanpot Shake posted:Personally I think they should have ripped off the bandaid and written a good system, critics be damned. LGD fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
I've managed to track down the v1 PDF and all of the beta updates for v1 and v2. (Everything but the v1 PDF is still freely available on FFG's site if you just poke around with address names.) Was the v2 PDF terribly different from the finished product, or should I just consider it to be What We Got But Less Polished? Paging through here and there they did have some interesting ideas, but I'd agree with LGD et al. that it seems to have needed a fair bit more work. Ah well, something to consider for later. I particularly like the fact that talent costs (a major design bugbear) are independent of your starting choices. Sure, it seems to have gone back to the old style of your role/whatever determining cost values for characteristics/skills. But at least it's not heavily straitjacketing you into the specific intentions the designers had, which is what the old pre-BC cost tables did. NGDBSS fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
LGD posted:That would have been very cool. That's not what the DH2 v1 beta was. On this, you're right. The original beta was a half measure, using a bunch of the words and mechanics from the old games that had their own structural flaws. There was a segment of the test group that was dissatisfied with the original beta because it didn't go far enough. They should have abandoned every single mechanic and rebuilt the game around the theme of being secret police agents who are in over their heads investigating the grimdark bad things of the 41st millennium.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
DOWN JACKET FETISH posted:No offence dude but do you reckon you could maybe hit the return key a few times during your posts? Your points make sense, I'd just like to be able to read them. Sorry, man. I'm used to writing papers and I sometimes forget I'm writing on a forum and not in normal paragraphs. I'll try to do that in the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Although I am a huge fan of the 'throw the baby out with the bath water because it was a mutant baby hellbeast from Dimension X that needed to die' method of game design, let's look at how well that worked for 4e D&D. And they didn't even completely throw the baby out either, leaving such precious items like feats and the ever-growing bonuses that require a spreadsheet to keep track of! If there is a way to make it feel more Warhammer-y, they might do with switching to a d6 system as opposed to a d100 system (although admittedly, I enjoy d100 systems because they are quite parsimonious even if they do end up being somewhat complicated - Call of Cthulhu's influence is very readily felt in DH1 through this). Of course, this would probably introduce more problems than it solves. For example, just thinking about how advancement works in a d6 system compared to how it works for a d100 system is something I haven't fully comprehended. It would be really useful for them to sit down when they make a definitive second edition of their lines for them to change them in ways that best suit them - for example, although the full-auto rules are completely pants-on-head retarded, they feel kind of awesome in Deathwatch because you're supposed to be murder-tanks (although in the base rules as written the Heavy Bolter, which you started with as a Devastator, was hands-down one of the game's best weapons if not the best). Black Crusade's advancement system is pretty cool, awesome, and definitely thematic to the hilt and that is something they should never get rid of, in my opinion. What could be better refined are rituals, as I believe the rituals in the base game are a little wonky for not much benefit (all that effort into summoning a Bloodletter and it's only around for 6-10 rounds?).
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
LGD posted:That would have been very cool. That's not what the DH2 v1 beta was. Gather around children and witness what DH2 Beta v1 was:  Beta PDF posted:The cost to purchase an advance in a characteristic is based on the characteristic’s value and character’s role.First, determine the experience modifier for the desired characteristic. This is a value between 50 and 150, and can be found in Characteristic Costs table under the character’s role. Then, multiply the experience modifier by the characteristic’s current bonus. The resulting value is the cost to advance that characteristic. For example, if the current value of the characteristic is 38, and the modifier was 50, then the total cost would be 150 (50 x 3). Now, you might wonder "Gee, there's nothing wrong with that" but you forgot one thing. They now had just a table with modifiers for every skill and characteristics, taking exactly the same amount of space as a table just saying how much each level cost. This might ne no biggie, just something that made spending exp something almost as annoying as in Only War. However they also decided that the thing that DH1 lacked was Action Points. Instead of having Full/Half/Free/Reaction, you now had 4 AP per round, and everything costs n amount of AP. Beta PDF posted:Every action has a listed cost of action points. This is the amount of APs a character must spend to perform the action. The character first removes the number of APs required to perform the action from his pool of available points, then he enacts the listed effects of the action. If a character does not have enough APs to activate an action, that action cannot be taken. If the character does not spend all of his available action points, he retains them even after his turn has ended. He may then spend these action points on other characters’ turns to activate reaction-type actions in response to events, such as being attacked. All action points left at the start of the character’s next turn are lost. All characters start with only four action points at the start of every turn.  oh and Talent trees out the wazoo (Well no, only Inquisitor and Psykers get trees, but Psyker gets 5 of them):  Now, the most eagle-eyed of you might notice that it says Variable on the attack cost, thats because different weapons can attack different amount of times per round. (Yes) Beta PDF posted:"Rate of Fire (RoF): Used to determine how many times an attack is capable of hitting its target. In the common ranged and melee attack actions, rate of attack is determined by multiplying the weapon’s rate of fire by the number of action points spent to perform the action. However, other attack actions can use different methods to determine rate of attack. Some weapons have a rate of fire that is a fraction such as “1/2,” “1/3,” or “1/4.” In these cases, these weapons cannot be fired unless the action being used to attack multiplies their RoF above 1. For example, with the basic Ranged and Melee Attack actions, a weapon with a RoF of 1/2 would require 2 AP to achieve a rate of attack of 1, and 4 AP to achieve a RoA of 2. If the resulting rate of attack ever still includes a fraction after the multiplication, the result is always rounded down. An attack using a RoF of 1/2 and 3 AP would still only have a rate of attack of 1. If the character does not spend enough AP to get the Rof of an attack action over 1, the attack fails."  Oh boy, instead of saying how much it costs to SHOOT GUN, lets give them this fraction that tells you how many attacks you get per 1 AP, BEST IDEA EVER. Changes to psykers? Lets get them too, can't have the trustworthy class suffer under the new edition. Oh wait. Beta PDF posted:Psychic powers are divided into different disciplines based on how they use the energies of the Warp. Each discipline corresponds to a tree that determines its availability to a character. In addition, each discipline has a unique table the psyker rolls on to determine any psychic phenomena triggered while using the power. This book covers the following five disciplines: Lest not anyone think the disciplines were all good and fun. Precognition literally lets you see the future. That is all it does. 
Sormus fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Effortpost incoming about the little problem in the beta where owning a longlas and having a certain talent meant you could kill any enemy in the game with 2-4 successful hits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
I have a feeling that making villains that can withstand abuse by reasonably min/maxed characters in 1E will basically require giving them a shitzillion wound points.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
To be fair, you can do that in a lot of them if you're tooled up for it. In Only War, 3d10+lots with felling 4 wrecks most things that aren't vehicles. Once you start ranking up and stacking situational bonuses it quickly gets even sillier, especially if you're hitting an unaware target.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
So it's, what, the first version to have a sniper rifle actually perform its job since the Exitus Rifle back in Ascension?  But more seriously, that statement on its own doesn't worry me terribly much. Accurate was historically the "sniper weapon" property for guns, and thus Accurate weapons could get extra damage but not terribly much compared to the long-range man-portable artillery you could easily field like the lascannon or autocannon. (Bracing exists but can be obviated with an implant.) I've allowed the "sniper" in my BC party to use a Stalker Combi-Bolter just so he can keep up with the rest of the group. (They started with the man-portable artillery, see.) NGDBSS fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Sormus posted:
Many new ideas had good foundations but were poorly executed. For instance, not only were weapons with RoF < 1 clunky, they also made no sense. For example, the sniper rifle (RoF 1/3, or 3AP to fire) could only aim for one AP for +15 to hit (10 + 5 for accurate), whereas a laspistol (RoF 1) could aim for three AP, gaining +30 to hit. Simply changing all RoF fractions to 1 and giving those weapons the Single Shot attribute would completely solve both problems. Many people didn't want to try and change the v1 rules into something that not only worked well but worked better than 1e, they'd instead argue that OW is fine and why are we changing things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
NGDBSS posted:On top of that, variance on weapon damage can get out of whack just by virtue of using d10s instead of some smaller die or a bell curve. In theory you can be shot with (say) a bolt pistol that might after armor deal 1-10 damage, with all values equally likely. Now compare that to PC wounds; 1 ain't so much but 10 is very worrisome. Yeah in the RT campaign I'm running one of the biggest complaints had to do with the insane weapon damage variance in some cases. I nearly implimented a system where damage scales up based on the degrees of success of initial shot because at least you can claim a called shot to the head with 5 dos got the guy so square it should be worth a full 9 or 10 points. No ammunition is quirky enough to justify low to no damage there. You would still roll a d10 for damage but only to see if righteous fury also activated. I didn't have enough mathammer skills to see if that would screw things up tho so I played it safe and left the system untouched.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
NGDBSS posted:So it's, what, the first version to have a sniper rifle actually perform its job since the Exitus Rifle back in Ascension? I'm inclined to say that part of the issue here, and it's absolutely a valid issue, is the fact that things like lascannons and autocannons shouldn't really be man-portable by anyone other than maybe space marines or someone in some power armor or with rare suspensor rigs, but the games themselves don't really do much to enforce that. Similarly I feel like weapons designed to be used against vehicles and hardened targets primarily (i.e. things like lascannons and autocannons) should be harder to bring to bear against smaller, squishier targets. There's not really any sort of stark division between "weapons designed to be used against people" and "weapons designed to be used against vehicles" and so hey, why not just pick up an autocannon and doublemurder everything? The opportunity costs for using heavy, antivehicular weaponry like that ought to be much more substantial in my opinion, not enough to make them worthless but enough so that their use is carefully considered based on the situation (are there vehicles, do we have time to set up a firing position, do I have a crew to help me, etc.) unless you are, of course, a space marine at which point I'm okay with you using a lascannon to 360 noscope dudes because that's the sort of thing space marines should be doing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
It's also totally reasonable to try to use a krak missile ON a space marine, because it is an anti-tank weapon and he is basically an infantry-shaped tank.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I'm inclined to say that part of the issue here, and it's absolutely a valid issue, is the fact that things like lascannons and autocannons shouldn't really be man-portable by anyone other than maybe space marines or someone in some power armor or with rare suspensor rigs, but the games themselves don't really do much to enforce that. Similarly I feel like weapons designed to be used against vehicles and hardened targets primarily (i.e. things like lascannons and autocannons) should be harder to bring to bear against smaller, squishier targets. There's not really any sort of stark division between "weapons designed to be used against people" and "weapons designed to be used against vehicles" and so hey, why not just pick up an autocannon and doublemurder everything? To be fair, Gaunts Ghosts and other books does have those being used as anti personnel weapons. Then again its a sub-universe of 40k where several dozens lasgun shots are an actual thread to a CSM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 06:01
|
|