The Conclave

The Ordos Majoris - Hobby, Painting and Modelling => Inquisitor Game Discussion => Topic started by: Alyster Wick on January 26, 2016, 04:35:11 AM

Title: Revised CCW
Post by: Alyster Wick on January 26, 2016, 04:35:11 AM
I've floated versions of this idea out there before, but now I want to finalize something. My idea is to redo the more iconic Close Combat Weapons in the 40K universe to make them a bit more fun (the damage dice variation are just incredibly boring). As has been done before, I think it makes sense to look at these specialty weapons as mods of basic weapons types as opposed to brand new weapons all together.

BIG shout out to Koval, whose RIPPA rules I use here for Tearing and Rending damage.

The weapon types I'm looking to tackle would be:

Chain Weapons
Shock Weapons
Monomolecular Weapons
Power Weapons

Am I missing any major ones? Force Weapons I suppose, I just don't know that I have any ideas that far off from what the rulebook has. Anyway, here is my ideas.

Chain Weapons
Add an additional damage dice (a sword goes from 2d6 to 3d6)
Add 10 to the parry penalty (it's much bulkier now, after all)
The weapon does tearing damage (roll and extra dice, discard the lowest. So for a chainsword you role 4d6 and remove the lowest die)
Characters defending against the chain weapon add 10 to their parry penalty
An activated chain weapon can be heard 35 meters away

Shock Weapons
These weapons cannot be destroyed by power weapons
A shock weapon adds d6 (average) or d10 (riot grade) to its damage (based on the quality of the weapon)
Characters hit by a shock weapon must pass a T test or be stunned for d3 turns
(not a huge change from what's currently there, I know, but I'm doing this for the sake of folks being able to create their own weapons!)

Monomolecular Blades
Can only be taken by bladed weapons
Add between +2 (human craftsman) and +6 (eldar quality, literally one molecule across) damage to the blade, based on quality
Characters hit by a monomolecular blade must pass a T test or start bleeding from that location

Power Weapons
This is my rawest category. Here are my three ideas:
Add d10 (basic), 2d6 (military), or 2d10 (master crafted) damage based on the quality of the power weapon
Weapon does d3 Rending damage (-1 to your targets BIV for each grade of rending)
Divide opponents armor by d3+1, rounding up (that way power armor is reduced anywhere from 5 armor to 3. Anything else is paper)
Side note, I really love the idea of just doing d3 Rending Damage and the d3+1 mod to armor. That said, two extra dice rolls seem excessive, though I suppose hitting someone with a power weapon should be an event. I like the rending damage a lot because it drives home the weird effect that an energy field would have on living flesh. That said, the armor mitigation is important, as that's the whole point of a power weapon to begin with. I don't know, thoughts?

Once I hammer out these ideas I'd love to jump into specialty types of each weapon, like Eviscerators, Thunder Hammers, Neural Whips, Agonizers, etc. Also, I have some thought son encumbrance, but I honestly don't play by those rules (we just have more of a good-will rule of thumb not to take obscene amounts of equipment).
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Lord Borak on January 26, 2016, 07:29:10 AM
With chain weapons, the average damage of 3d6 and 2d10 work out about the same so there seems little point adding even more dice to complicate matters. The rending idea is cool though but I think this might ne better causing more damage to flesh and blood. Maybe add d6 to an injury total and then bleeding on top?  You could make the long term effects of injury from chain weapons more severe as well.

Off to work now so I'll comment on the others later
 
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Koval on January 26, 2016, 07:56:36 AM
rules ... for Tearing and Rending damage.
I think you meant Marco and RIA. While recognition of my own work is nice, misattributing someone else's work is just a headache.

On a more constructive note, I believe Marco wanted to make power weapons something like Heavy AP (so just straight up halving armour), as well as granting Critical Hits if the units die is equal to or below a certain value (which IIRC was disgustingly high; 6 or 7 for smaller things like swords, up to 9 for a massive power-scythe one of my characters has) but without really changing the damage stat of the weapon too much. Maybe like one or two points extra. It's a lot simpler than rolling loads of extra dice.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Cortez on January 26, 2016, 10:00:33 AM
I don't really see the need for this at the moment. Close combat can be quite nasty, but unless the attacker gets several actions off the defender is usually able to avoid the first attack, so to me it seems to add an additional layer of complexity (more dice rolling, special rules etc.) without really improving things, although I do like Borak's idea of chain weapons automatically causing bleeding.

I'll use the power sword as an example of what I mean: The current power sword does 3D10 damage which means a minimum damage of 3, an average damage (if my maths is correct) of 17 and a maximum damage of 30. With your changes the sword will do 4D6 damage, so a minimum of 4, average 15, maximum 24, but will also do 1-3 rending damage and ignore 2-4 points of armour, which actually means (against an armoured target) you'll have a minimum damage of 7, average of 20 and maximum of 31, yet requires an additional two dice rolls to achieve.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Van Helser on January 26, 2016, 11:25:15 AM
I've had some thoughts on things:

Making power weapons halve armour values like Kraken Penetrator Rounds may be something to apply, but they already do a massive amount of damage anyhow and would become even more powerful with some of these proposed changes. I tend to actively discourage their use in games due the ability to one-hit PCs anyhow. Adding a little change to damage to represent crude/military/master-crafted is a cosmetic change that won't slow things down too much.

Chain weapons should be noisy - if Saussure is reading he could wax lyrical about a character trying a sneak attack with an Eviscerator under his watch - and rending isn't too bad an idea. Might be simpler to add +3 or something to damage and save on a re-roll.

Shock weapons stunning for longer is something I could get with.

Monoblades doing more damage makes sense, and allows for a distinction between primitive and military weapons. Do we go full Dark Heresy and allow non-primitive armour (robes, leather, furs, hide) to count double against primitive weapons?

Ruaridh
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Alyster Wick on January 26, 2016, 02:48:22 PM
Ah, hit I nerve it seems. I'll respond to a few things and offer some amendments.

rules ... for Tearing and Rending damage.
I think you meant Marco and RIA. While recognition of my own work is nice, misattributing someone else's work is just a headache.

I looked back and you do indeed attribute the damage types to the Revised Armory. My bad, and thanks Marco in that case!


So a bulk of the criticism tends to be along the lines of, "this isn't necessary" and "math-hammer shows there's little practical difference." These are both valid points and there isn't much point arguing against them as there isn't really a right or a wrong, just a different point of view. To that end, let me explain what I was going for.

"This isn't necessary" - True, there's nothing particularly wrong with the current rulebook versions as they stand. That said, Chainswords and Power Weapons are iconic pieces of kit and in a game as in-depth as inquisitor it feels wrong to me not to have them differentiated a bit. My attempt here was to do that in a (relatively) simple way. I do have some edits below which I think will push us more to that end.

"Math-Hammer!" - Also very true, my math here doesn't necessarily lead to all that much differentiation statistically speaking, but I would argue that it is significant. Having these options available as upgrades sets them apart from what is already in the rulebook. That effectively puts the current damage values represented by Power Weapons and Chain Weapons back in play for other mundane weapon types (which, in turn, could be upgraded). Now I'm not arguing that people show rush to create spear-swords that do obscene damage just to upgrade them to chain-spear swords, but in a world of limited dice combinations it's helpful to set certain categories of weapons aside as upgrade to allow for more options. My attempt with these rules was to clear the field for all varieties of mundane weapons and reserve the four types above as upgrades to the mundane types. That was too wordy, but does that make sense?

Back to the original point of it not being necessary, again I do agree that it isn't necessary. But I do think it's fun and offers up more possibilities.

My last push back to Math-Hammer is that it's just fun to roll more dice. When you attack someone with a chainsword or a power sword these rules make you feel the effect of them being more powerful in a literal way. You take the dice you would have rolled for a mundane variety of said weapon and increase them. This is purely psychological, but I would argue it's significant. After all, we could just play inquisitor with chess pieces on a strip of cardboard and entered numbers into Excel rather than rolling dice and rules-wise it'd be the same game. That's perhaps an extreme and unfair comparison by degrees, but you see my point.


On to the actual revisions

Quote
Chain Weapons
Weapons characteristic Changes: Add an additional damage dice (a sword goes from 2d6 to 3d6); Add 10 to the parry penalty (it's much bulkier now, after all)
Weapons Rules Changes:
The weapon does rending 1 damage
Characters defending against the chain weapon add 10 to their parry penalty
An activated chain weapon can be heard 35 meters away
If a Chain Weapon is "destroyed" by a power weapon it may be used as an Improvised Weapon
Opponents hit by a chain weapons must pass a T test or start bleeding

Mostly I changed formatting (looking at characteristic changes and rules changes separately). I did add the bleeding suggestions. An earlier draft of these rules actually did have bleeding in there, but I didn't want to use it for both chain weapons and monomolecular blades. I like the idea of damage from chain weapons being difficult to recover from, but what makes sense? Perhaps you can tick damage off your Injury total as normal but cannot decrease the injury level on a Location? If that's the case I may lose the bleeding rule as chain weapons would be quite monstrous.

Quote
Power Weapons
Weapon Characteristic Change:
None
Weapon Rules Change:
Weapon does Tearing Damage
Weapon does Heavy AP Damage (halves armor value)
If a Power Weapon is Parried or Successfully Parries there is a 20%-75% chance (based on quality of the weapon) that the opposing weapon is destroyed.

So I totally negated my own point about rolling more dice being the fun part (I also remembered to add back in the part about power weapons being able to destroy other weapons). That said, I think this effectively represents what a power field would do. The weapon damage remains unchanged, but the combo of Heavy AP and Tearing make it much more likely that a power weapon will have an impressive showing against an enemy regardless of what armor they're wearing. I will say that the term "Tearing" does not seem appropriate, but the rules effect work as intended. This also effectively differentiates power weapons completely from Shock Weapons (what with the dice bonus they get). Lastly, I think the variation in "chance of destroying other weapons" is important. It makes it less crazy for a ganger-lord who has gotten his hand on a really old and poorly maintained power weapon if there's only a 25% chance it destroys the weapon it's parrying against (still a 1 in 5 shot, but better than 3 in 4). Actually, now that I think about it power weapons could do Light or Heavy AP based on quality too.

What do folks think? While I know I gave some pushback on the pushback I was given I think the revised power weapon rules actually acknowledge those points and adjust accordingly.

Finally, thank you to everyone for the feedback! It was all useful. Thanks for reminding me of the AP damage Van.


Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Cortez on January 26, 2016, 04:14:42 PM
So ignoring the necessity of the change or not  :)

The chain weapon change is ok with it doing rending (+D6 damage) instead of tearing damage (your previous version effectively did both) and causing bleeding, which will give it a distinct flavour over regular weapons and an appropriate amount of damage. Although I would suggest making it a straight 50% chance to cause bleeding rather than a toughness test.

The power weapon though doesn't really feel like a power weapon to me. The re-roll via tearing will make the damage more consistent but the maximum damage dealt will be quite low especially compared to chain weapons (note in 2nd ed 40k Chainswords had strength 4, while powerswords had strength 5) or force weapons (2D6+2, +D10/2D6 on WP check). Powerswords for me should be a rare but powerful weapon that should cause catastrophic damage especially against unarmoured targets.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: MarcoSkoll on January 26, 2016, 04:19:09 PM
I think you meant Marco and RIA.
Well, being honest, Tearing is just nicked from Dark Heresy (other than tweaking it so it can use several dice).

The thing about power weapons being regular weapons with Heavy AP and a very high Critical chance is itself more or less borrowed from Robey's INQ2. I like it as an idea, as it's simple and makes power weapons pretty formidable, but avoids critical hits on top of a huge damage roll - while hits for 40+ damage are dramatic, they're not necessarily easy to balance a damage system around.

~~~~~

I'm not yet necessarily sure what I'm doing with the damage system in the Revised edition, but I'm definitely considering rebalancing system shock (at the moment, as both the SS value and the chance of passing the test are based the character's T, it means that characters go from being highly vulnerable to nigh-immune over a relatively narrow range of T), and that'll likely include adjustments so that high damage hits are more likely to cause SS (either negative modifiers, or requiring more than one test).

To take Silva as an example, with her T 73, she currently needs to take 15 damage for SS test (which many weapons can't even manage, even assuming they don't hit an armoured location), but once she needs to take one, she has a 73% chance of staying conscious right up until that hit does the 38 damage needed to exceed her consciousness.

I'd like to see that changed a bit so that dramatic one-hit KOs can be caused by something other than "I HAVE DONE ALL OF THE DAMAGE".


~~~~~

Beyond that, the version of chain weapons I had added some Tearing and slightly increased critical chance, so chain weapons actually had a bit of an edge over power weapons from time to time (having a higher average base damage, when they did crit, they'd usually be nastier).
I had considered bleeding... but given one of the goals of the IRE is to streamline things, I'm not sure whether I want to add that bookkeeping.

I hadn't yet approached shock weapons much (although I'm really not sure about the idea of increasing their stun duration... being stunned for a single turn can be pretty crucial in close combat as it is!).

Quote
Characters hit by a monomolecular blade must pass a T test or start bleeding from that location
Funnily enough, we do know how monomolecular cuts work*. They cut really well, but bleed less and heal better.

* As I mentioned in another thread recently, obsidian blades are REALLY sharp, with edges down to about 3nm. (For reference, a single silicon atom is about .2nm, a single walled carbon nanotube molecule is about 1.3nm, the membrane of a human cell is about 10 nm thick and the edge of a good steel blade will be of the order of 1000 nm).
In flesh, they make such precise cuts that the surrounding cells don't get damaged - that means little (or no) pain, and means the body only needs to knit a few cells together to heal the whole thing.

Quote
I will say that the term "Tearing" does not seem appropriate, but the rules effect work as intended.
The way I normally decide whether something counts as Tearing or Rending is that Tearing weapons rely on brute force, Rending weapons have more finesse - they cut or pierce the tissue. (I know "rending" as a term still implies violence, but can more reasonably include "cut" as a definition than "tearing" can). There are a few exceptions here and there, but the naming is intended as a bit of a guide.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Alyster Wick on January 31, 2016, 04:49:47 AM
The chain weapon change is ok with it doing rending (+D6 damage) instead of tearing damage (your previous version effectively did both) and causing bleeding, which will give it a distinct flavour over regular weapons and an appropriate amount of damage. Although I would suggest making it a straight 50% chance to cause bleeding rather than a toughness test.

The 50% chance makes sense, consider that implemented. I am finding myself flip-flopping on Rending vs. Tearing though, I may switch that back.


Shock weapons stunning for longer is something I could get with.


I hadn't yet approached shock weapons much (although I'm really not sure about the idea of increasing their stun duration... being stunned for a single turn can be pretty crucial in close combat as it is!).


This was actually totally accidental on my part. I thought the current rule was d3 for some reason, though this may be a happy accident. I'm planning to playtest these rules (well, whatever the finalized version of them looks like) as soon as possible so I may try that and see how it goes. Perhaps critical hits will stun d3 (or d3+1?) on a fail? Maybe that happens in lieu of double damage? (to symbolize that this is a weapon meant to disable rather than kill). As an aside, what do folks think about the "stun" damage only effecting the injury total (and not counting against BIV)? The thinking (again) would be that the stun field isn't actually damaging the limb but rather is attempting to overload the system. I think it's a fun twist. Too many rules to remember?

Do we go full Dark Heresy and allow non-primitive armour (robes, leather, furs, hide) to count double against primitive weapons?

Ruaridh

That may be a little too rich, even for my blood.


Quote
Characters hit by a monomolecular blade must pass a T test or start bleeding from that location
Funnily enough, we do know how monomolecular cuts work*. They cut really well, but bleed less and heal better.

* As I mentioned in another thread recently, obsidian blades are REALLY sharp, with edges down to about 3nm. (For reference, a single silicon atom is about .2nm, a single walled carbon nanotube molecule is about 1.3nm, the membrane of a human cell is about 10 nm thick and the edge of a good steel blade will be of the order of 1000 nm).
In flesh, they make such precise cuts that the surrounding cells don't get damaged - that means little (or no) pain, and means the body only needs to knit a few cells together to heal the whole thing.


Hmm, actually Rending may make more sense monomolecular blades. What would folks think about Rending (1) and rather than using Strength to calculate the damage bonus you use WS? The thinking would be that how hard you swing the blade is much less important that how you twist it once it goes in. I like all of this other than the fact that it doesn't deal with the idea that a monomolecular blade should slice through armor more easily (though I suppose you could say the WS bonus solves this, as you need to be skilled to put the blade through the right parts of the armor).



Which brings me back to power weapons. Heavy AP, Tearing, and possible Rending (1, 2, or d3?) could work. It solves the armor problem and rather than increase the damage it weakens the enemy defenses while making it more likely the damage will be on the high end of the spectrum. However, it feels really lazy to just throw all of Marco's rules at Power Weapons just to make them more effective.

I'm really in a quandary here. I know I could just leave well-enough alone and go with the rulebook versions, but I feel like there' s a good combination of rules out there. I could drop Tearing and make Criticals more likely (as has been suggested), maybe half of the required WS? Would that be too powerful, or just the right spot? So Heavy AP, Crits on 50% of required WS test, and Rending (variable based on quality), plus a variable chance it destroys the defending weapon (based on quality)? Still feels clunky to me...
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Lord Borak on January 31, 2016, 09:59:11 AM
With Power weapons. Why not just have them ignore, say, 5pts of armour? That way Carapace offers next to no protection whilst Power armour still offers some protection. The problem with 'halving' armour is that some armour becomes almost as good a protection as others. Flak armour (AV3) would go to AV2 which is only 1pt less that Carapace armour. Power armour would only give slightly better protection compared to Carapace and so on. A flat 'ignore' seems a bit fairer to the different armour types.

You could even have it that the better quality the Power weapon the more armour it ignores.


As for chock weapons. You could do it that it 'numbs' what ever it hits so if it hits an arm then they need a str test or drop the weapon. If they get hit in the head then they get stunned for additional rounds. If they get hit in the leg another str test of fall prone. A bit too much to remember though.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Alyster Wick on January 31, 2016, 10:46:57 PM
With Power weapons. Why not just have them ignore, say, 5pts of armour? That way Carapace offers next to no protection whilst Power armour still offers some protection. The problem with 'halving' armour is that some armour becomes almost as good a protection as others. Flak armour (AV3) would go to AV2 which is only 1pt less that Carapace armour. Power armour would only give slightly better protection compared to Carapace and so on. A flat 'ignore' seems a bit fairer to the different armour types.

You could even have it that the better quality the Power weapon the more armour it ignores.


Ignoring 5 points of armor seems appropriate, with variable levels for quality (say, 3 for crude and up to 7 for Master Crafted). I'm really wrestling with how to deal with the damage issue though. Perhaps just sticking w/ the damage levels in the rule book works. I'm also toying around with the thought of altering BIV in a more radical way (halving it, for instance). I'll settle on something then playtest it and see how it turns out.

As for chock weapons. You could do it that it 'numbs' what ever it hits so if it hits an arm then they need a str test or drop the weapon. If they get hit in the head then they get stunned for additional rounds. If they get hit in the leg another str test of fall prone. A bit too much to remember though.

What about just two basic effects? Characters hit in the legs or arms treat that limb as crippled for d3 turns on a failed T test (this does not stack, once the limbs is stunned it can't be restunned until the feeling comes back). Characters hit anywhere else are stunned, as per the rule book. If characters are hit in the head then the stunning is just compounded (the stunned results for being hit in the head being cumulative w/ shock weapon). It's a little different but also not crazily overpowered, plus it's pretty intuitive. It could get really hairy if someone gets hit in multiple different limbs in the same turn, but the odds of being hit in different limbs and failing those T tests seems remote enough that it'd be fun rather than overpowered.

I'm actually pretty happy with that idea. I think it modifies the effect of shock weapons in a way that makes them more fun (getting stunned is a royal pain as it is). 
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Lord Borak on January 31, 2016, 11:10:50 PM
All those changes sound cool but I'm just wary of over complicating rules. If you're spending 5 minutes working out a weapons effects on a model you're bogging the game down far too much. God helps us, we don't want to play second Ed 40K again.

Halving BIV is pretty horrific. Power Weapons are almost one hit wonders anyway. If you go for halving someone's BIV then I'd look and decreasing their overall damage whilst your at it. Say a Power sword is Dam: 2D10, ignores 5pts of armour and halves someone's BIV. Anyone who isn't a Marine is going to lose that limb. An average guardsman (BIV5) would take 4 levels on an average roll from a single hit.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Alyster Wick on February 01, 2016, 12:06:35 AM
All those changes sound cool but I'm just wary of over complicating rules. If you're spending 5 minutes working out a weapons effects on a model you're bogging the game down far too much. God helps us, we don't want to play second Ed 40K again. 

That's definitely a concern, but I'm also definitely committed to play testing the limb-numbing rule. If there were any effects differences beyond limb vs rest of the body (say, different effects for groin or ab hits) I think we'd be edging into overcomplication territory (and possibly new tables, which I definitely DO NOT want). I'll report back!

An average guardsman (BIV5) would take 4 levels on an average roll from a single hit.

A BIV 5 guardsmen would go to 3 (rounding up from 2.5). An "average" hit of 7 would then deal 3 levels of damage. That is definitely horrific, but comparing it to an "average" damage of 14.5 (off of 3d10, which I believe is a power sword now, correct me if I'm wrong) shows it's more or less the same (14 damage being only two levels with 15 pushing it to three, though you could comfortably say it'd average out to 2 assuming there's any level of armor).

The highest damage possibility for both of those scenarios (12 damage against 5 BIV w/ no armor vs. 30 damage against BIV 5 and 3-5 armor let's say) both result in the limb being destroyed, whereas the lowest damage would have my version still doing a level of damage (no armor being present) and wouldn't scratch the guardsmen (a disappointing result for a hit w/ a power weapon).

I'm thinking in this situation that the damage going to the Injury total remains flat (it would not be adjusted up to account for the base BIV) so a roll of 5 on the d6 would result in 5 damage to the injury total (as opposed to adjusting up the first three points to 5 to account for the actual base injury, does that make sense?). The thinking would be that whatever weird effects the power weapon has also cauterizes the wound somehow.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Lord Borak on February 01, 2016, 09:52:51 AM
Are you counting a Power sword as a normal sword with those bonuses then? The average of 2D6 is 7 (a normal sword). Changing Power weapons this way completely is quite a cool idea though. They cause the same 'damage' as a normal weapon of their type but they ignore armour and halve a persons BIV.

That works. Its nasty but not overly so as someone's base injury isn't going to go through the roof in one hit fast but their levels will.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Alyster Wick on February 01, 2016, 01:37:13 PM
Are you counting a Power sword as a normal sword with those bonuses then? The average of 2D6 is 7 (a normal sword). Changing Power weapons this way completely is quite a cool idea though. They cause the same 'damage' as a normal weapon of their type but they ignore armour and halve a persons BIV.

That works. Its nasty but not overly so as someone's base injury isn't going to go through the roof in one hit fast but their levels will.

Yes, sorry, the way I was presenting these rules was that you attached them to existing mundane weapons, NOT the current rulebook versions (which would be excessive, you're absolutely right). My next step will be to write out the actual rules so you all have something concrete to look at. In the next month I'm thinking of doing a one-off game where everyone "wakes up in the arena" and has to scramble for various weapons as a way to test them out.

Yes, it's a bit silly to think that a powersword would be sitting in an underhive gladiatorial pit, but that's not really the point :)
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: MarcoSkoll on February 03, 2016, 10:36:41 PM
I'm also toying around with the thought of altering BIV in a more radical way (halving it, for instance).
That's doesn't actually add much new to the interaction between damage and Toughness. Because BIV divides damage to get injury, halving BIV is a lot like doubling damage (at least if there's no armour, and if you're playing with -5 AV or something, there often won't be), just with a paradoxically low chance of system shock from having a limb chopped off.

(I'm not sure there are a lot of references to power weapons cauterising. I have half a recollection that they might deliberately do it in some story somewhere, although one half of me says it's a Space Wolf story and another says it's an IG story, and I'm not actually sure it wasn't actually done with a plasma pistol, but it's not exactly something that happens every time).

With Rending, subtracting from the BIV is non-proportional maths, meaning that it works rather differently to just increasing damage. Similarly, Tearing messes with the statistics rather than necessarily being a straight damage boost.

Conversely, this is why most of the AP mechanics in the RIA divide armour. With armour being subtractive, dividing it makes AP work differently to adding damage. Compare this to Dark Heresy, where both Toughness and Armour subtract from damage, meaning that a weapon's penetration (which just reduces the AV by X amount) effectively just counts as extra points of damage up to a maximum of the target's AV.

And although it's yet to make it into a release version of the RIA, there's also Unnatural damage, which continues the tradition of messing with the mathematics of damage vs. toughness. It just deals injury levels directly, then does D6 to injury total for each level it does. (I prefer the latter part over the "minimum injury total required" mechanic that GW used a couple of times, as it means toughness does have some effect as far as consciousness and system shock).
That one's mostly intended for things that ignore physical law, such as wraithcannons, vortex grenades and other warp based weapons, although it has potential use for brutally powerful weapons.

Quote
Rending (1, 2, or d3?)
I know you've largely abandoned this idea, but I got various feedback about Rending(2) in the RIA that it could easily put locations past crippled on certain weapons. I don't now use it as a general effect (like, for example, the old Redshift muzzle for the lasguns) where the weapon has an unknown damage roll, and keep it only to specific cases - things like Frag weapons, where I know that it's balanced by doing only D10 damage.
Rending(3), which could happen with a D3, is something I've used only once so far.

Essentially, Rending is quite powerful, you need to be careful how much damage it gets stacked with. It's not unknown for unaugmented close combat weapons to do things like 2D6+5 damage (say, a great hammer being wielded by a S80 character, fairly feasible with bionics), which is a lot alongside the possibility of Rending(3).

Even if not for the possible brutality of Rending(3), using a D3 would just mean extra rolls and more maths every hit. It's not really necessary when damage is already randomised.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Alyster Wick on February 15, 2016, 05:30:26 PM
Okay, so I'm going to stick w/ shock weapons doing an extra d6 or d10 w/ the stun effects modified for limbs (the limb is "crippled" for d3 turns), and I'll give them a further -10% parry penalty (seems appropriate, right?). I'm also sticking w/ Chain weapons being +1 damage dice, dealing tearing damage, w/ a 50% chance to cause bleeding, and the parry penalty increased.

That leaves monomolecular blades and power weapons. I've done a lot of thinking and this is what I came up w/ for each:

Monomolecular Blades:
Monomolecular Blades do Light AP damage and add +2 to the weapon’s damage.
Additional Rules
Master Crafted: The wielder may use their WS instead of Strength to calculate their damage bonus.
Eldar Crafted (I'm considering expanding this for other weapons): The blade does Rending (1) damage. Additionally, the wielder may use their WS instead of Strength to calculate their damage bonus.

Power Weapons: A weapon that receives the power weapon upgrade will up their damage die from d6 to d10 or from d10 to 2d6. Additionally the rules for Grievous Damage* and ignores first 5 points of armor. Finally, a power weapon has a 25% to 75% chance of destroying the opposing players weapon (based on the quality of the blade) and incurs an additional -5% parry penalty.
Additional Rules
Master Crafted : You may add an additional d6, d10, or 2d6 damage to the weapon, based on quality (ranging from a contemporary craftsmen to an ancient legacy blade forged in the dark age of technology). There is no additional parry penalty for a Master Crafted Power Sword
*Grievous Damage: The damage dealt by this weapon or psychic power cannot be healed by conventional means. You may not recover points to your injury total during the recovery phase of the game and injury levels may not be recovered if they were lost due to grievous damage. Injury level or injury total may only be recovered in-game at GMs discretion. For bookkeeping purposes it is suggested that you note the characters new maximum health total next to their Consciousness level and that you completely black out injury levels inflicted due to Grievous Damage.

___________________________________________

To give an idea how this works in game, here are some profiles:

Sword (mundane): Reach 3, Damage 2d6, PP: -10%

Shock Sword (I'm not sure a shock sword should exist, but I'm including it as a point of comparison. if Shock Swords do exist in fluff let me know, I could be totally wrong here): Reach 3, Damage 3d6, PP: -15%, Cannot be destroyed by Power Weapons, Stuns (per description above)

Chainsword: Reach 3, Damage 3d6, PP: -25%, Tearing 1, 50% causes bleeding, audible 35 meters away

Monomolecular Sword:
Reach 3, Damage 2d6+2, PP: -10%, Light AP

Eldar Monomolecular Sword: Reach 3, Damage 2d6+2, PP: -10%, Light AP, Rending (1), Damage bonus calculated using WS

Power Sword: Reach 3, Damage 2d10, PP: -15%, Ignores first 5 points of armor, Grievous Damage, 25% chance to destroy parrying weapon

Master Crafted Power Sword:
Reach 3, Damage 3d10, PP: -10%, Ignores first 5 points of armor, Grievous Damage, 50% chance to destroy parrying weapon

Dark Age Power Sword: Reach 3, Damage 2d10+2d6, PP: -10%, Ignores first 5 points of armor, Grievous Damage, 75% chance to destroy parrying weapon

Eldar Power Sword (super experimental): Reach 3, Damage 2d10, PP: -10%, Ignores first 5 points of armor, Grievous Damage, 50% chance to destroy parrying weapon, Rending (1), Damage bonus based on WS rather than S

Eldar Chainsword (super experimental):
Reach 3, Damage 3d6, PP: -25%, Rending (1) damage, Tearing (1) damage, the wielder may use their WS instead of Strength to calculate their damage bonus

___________________________________

So I'm definitely at the point where I can start play testing these rules, but what is written above w/ the various sword rules shows in a concrete way what I was hoping to achieve, which is to have these special kinds of weapons be straight variations off of their mundane versions. Thoughts? I'm hoping to do a real game with these complete w/ a write up between now and Easter. The big question is, are these rules you'd be comfortable playing with if someone showed up to an open game? Are they fair, reflective of the fluff, and fun?
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Raghnall on February 15, 2016, 07:11:15 PM
Shock Sword (I'm not sure a shock sword should exist, but I'm including it as a point of comparison. if Shock Swords do exist in fluff let me know, I could be totally wrong here): Reach 3, Damage 3d6, PP: -15%, Cannot be destroyed by Power Weapons, Stuns (per description above)
In my opinion, shock swords should exist, in order to provide a mid-point between regular melee weapons and power weapons, which is more elegant than a chain weapon. It stands to reason that if you can fit a shock generator to a metal stick, you can stick one to a sharpened metal stick. Of course, what I think doesn't actually matter, as Dark Heresy gives us a wide variety of different shock weapons, including the officer's cutlass.

"The officer’s cutlass is a standard variation on the basic cutlass sword and it sees use in almost every vessel in the sector. In close-quarters fighting, the heavy metal guard is often used as an offensive weapon in its own right as the armoured shell can provide a powerful punch. Many ship’s officers and ratings heighten this effect by incorporating a shock generator in the guard, so that, when hit, an opponent is felled by both the electrical shock as well as the solid impact. Chartist captains and other higher rankings use even more lethal versions, strengthening their blades with power fields." -page 162, Inquisitor's Handbook.

The stats for a shock sword seem about right, and really appropriate for the role that I see weapons-grade shock weapons as filling, although perhaps there should be rules for striking with the flat of the blade/electrified guard/hilt, or generally using it in a less lethal manner, in a more traditional shock weapon style.

So I'm definitely at the point where I can start play testing these rules, but what is written above w/ the various sword rules shows in a concrete way what I was hoping to achieve, which is to have these special kinds of weapons be straight variations off of their mundane versions. Thoughts? I'm hoping to do a real game with these complete w/ a write up between now and Easter. The big question is, are these rules you'd be comfortable playing with if someone showed up to an open game? Are they fair, reflective of the fluff, and fun?

The whole concept rather reminds me of the rules Charax and Heist wrote, which were fun. Currently, I feel that close combat weapons are seriously lacking variety, and barring a Marco-style armoury*, this is probably the best solution. Since most of the special rules are taken from the RIA, it adds little extra complexity, in return for massive customisability, and I fully support the project. On one last note, I think it might be useful to come up with a one word name for a rule meaning that a weapon isn't broken by power weapons, as that shows up in a variety of cases, and such a name would just save space.

*While the RIA is fantastic, and incredibly useful, I don't think there is anyone with the same combination of dedication and insanity that Marco must clearly possess to have written it, and by his own admission, even he lacks the knowledge to do a melee equivalent justice.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: MarcoSkoll on February 16, 2016, 12:42:33 AM
w/ the stun effects modified for limbs (the limb is "crippled" for d3 turns)
I'd have to play-test that to know exactly how that would work out. My instinct says that could be nastier than the already fairly dramatic effect a shock weapon can have - losing the use of an arm for D3 turns may mean not being able to attack or defend for three turns, but being stunned will often mean just not attacking for one (as there's a fair chance your opponent has run out of attacks with which to exploit your stunned status).

Perhaps if it were D3-1 turns, with a 0 applying it only as an immediate effect (so you go prone or drop your weapon, but can act as normal after that), that might balance up a little better.

Quote
I'm also sticking w/ Chain weapons being +1 damage dice, dealing tearing damage, w/ a 50% chance to cause bleeding, and the parry penalty increased.
I'm still not necessarily convinced by the additional bleeding effects in terms of bookkeeping, but I can see the argument for it.

My inclination would be to provide a somewhat smaller initial increase in damage though. The 3D6 Tearing of your chainsword would average out at 12.24 damage, which is more than they currently average (11 damage) even before the possibility of blood loss is considered.

Quote
*Grievous Damage: The damage dealt by this weapon or psychic power cannot be healed by conventional means. You may not recover points to your injury total during the recovery phase of the game and injury levels may not be recovered if they were lost due to grievous damage. Injury level or injury total may only be recovered in-game at GMs discretion. For bookkeeping purposes it is suggested that you note the characters new maximum health total next to their Consciousness level and that you completely black out injury levels inflicted due to Grievous Damage.
This is seriously powerful (taking 2D10 damage to your injury total is nasty enough, but making it unrecoverable?), requires a lot of extra book-keeping and I'm not sure I can justify a power weapon dealing more permanent damage than, say, a plasma gun. Yes, it might just lop a limb clean off... but a regular sword can do that, and something like a meltagun would actually reduce much of that limb to expanding vapour. (But, even so, there is going to be the potential to staunch any bleeding, inject morphia, etc.)

It is an interesting rule, but is probably better kept as flavour for oddities like the Gauss Flayer, rather than being applied to something as comparatively "common" as a power sword.

The rest of it though, with a power sword doing 2D10 Damage, Pen 5 (to use the DH parlance)... that sounds like it's in the right ballpark to me and manages to make itself more interesting than the LRB's rules.

On one last note, I think it might be useful to come up with a one word name for a rule meaning that a weapon isn't broken by power weapons, as that shows up in a variety of cases, and such a name would just save space.
I currently use "Fielded", representing that the weapon either naturally generates an energy field that counters power weapons, or has been modified (due to value, rarity, heirloomishness* or the like) with energy fields to avoid the risk of it being damaged.
*Probably not actually a word.

But "Indestructible" might be better. It's certainly more self-explanatory.

Quote
*While the RIA is fantastic, and incredibly useful, I don't think there is anyone with the same combination of dedication and insanity that Marco must clearly possess to have written it, and by his own admission, even he lacks the knowledge to do a melee equivalent justice.
Another reason I've not moved in on melee weapons is that there's less room to work in.

By default, melee weapons get three characteristics (one of which has only five possible values), whereas there's ten for ranged weapons (although most only use seven, with Acc, Area and Blast often not used). Even without bringing a single special rule into it, the characteristics for guns are enough to distinguish between a Browning Hi-Power and a Colt M1911, but there's a lot less room to differentiate a katana and a sabre - despite the two swords being much more different in their combat roles than the two pistols.

If you wanted to do a melee armoury of the same scope as the RIA, it'd require a hefty re-engineering of the close combat rules... which isn't necessarily a place that's a good idea to be complicating.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Alyster Wick on February 20, 2016, 09:53:11 PM
Thanks for confirming the existence of shock swords Rhagnall, that makes sense to me. It also is causing some ideas for additional "upgrades" that could be given to weapons (such as a Guard). I've been considering adding additional CC rules including an "up close" fighting distance option. It would involve characters moving into base-to-base contact and would favor weapons with a shorter reach (reach bonuses would flip, with 0 or 1 being the best and anything beyond that working like an improvised weapon with negative bonuses the longer it is). In this circumstance, a sword with a guard on it could be used as an armored gauntlet when up close (or it would allow you to have an armored gauntlet for one round after your weapon is destroyed by a power weapon). I was playing around with the idea of a weapon with a guard dropping to a 0 Parry Penalty as long as the counter-attack was carried out by the armored gauntlet/brass knuckles. Anyway, that's a rant and isn't completely relevant. Do other folks have ideas for "Weapon Upgrades" in the mold of a guard?

Quote
On one last note, I think it might be useful to come up with a one word name for a rule meaning that a weapon isn't broken by power weapons, as that shows up in a variety of cases, and such a name would just save space.

I'm considering Invulnerable. It's close to Marco's suggestion of Indestructible but I like how it's a call back to Invulnerable saves from 40K. It also is general enough that it's feels appropriate for a Daemon Weapon that wouldn't necessarily have an energy field around it.


Quote
*Grievous Damage
This is seriously powerful (taking 2D10 damage to your injury total is nasty enough, but making it unrecoverable?), requires a lot of extra book-keeping and I'm not sure I can justify a power weapon dealing more permanent damage than, say, a plasma gun.


I'm taking all your advice into advisement but wanted to focus on this. The bookkeeping doesn't seem that excessive to me (you basically just drop their max Health) but it is something that could easily be forgotten, and it could be potentially quite powerful. As of right now I'll drop those rules for Power Weapons (though I may keep the concept for C'Tan Phase Swords or something, more on that later).

What about setting a BIV cap for Power Weapons? Let's say 5 is the max? I go back and forth on this. It's nice because it shows that these weapons are incredibly dangerous no matter how tough a character is. On the other hand, it offers no additional bonuses for characters w/ BIV 5 and lower (though I suppose a character lower than 5 BIV getting hit w/ a power weapon is bad enough already). Any adjustments to compensate for that basically bring us back to rending.

I may just playtest the 5 BIV cap and see what happens.

NEXT UP:

There are 4 remaining parts of this project I definitely want to take on with a possible 5th that's more CC than CCW (as foreshadowed above). They are:

- Force Weapons: I want to throw together something that gives more options for Force Weapons, making them similar to Daemon Weapons in terms of having different effects.

- Weapons of the 41st Millennia: Making rules for the most notorious unique weapons in the 40K universe that don't have a mundane counter-part or are unique enough to not be a straight upgrade. These include: Power Fist, Thunder Hammer, Eviscerator, C'Tan Phase Sword, Harlequin Kiss, possibly some more obscure Eldar/Dark Eldar weapons (husk blade, punisher, agonizer, etc). What other iconic weapons am I missing?

- Additional Upgrades: As mentioned above, what items could be added to weapons to further customize them (in the style of a guard)? I'd need to do more research here but I'd be interested in getting more ideas. What other upgrades can people think of?

- Additional Mundane Weapons: This includes Batons, Bigger Swords/different kinds of swords, perhaps more polearms, etc. With some more dice combos freed up I'd like to make some modest additions to the list of mundane weapons to add a little more variety.

The fifth and final part of this would be a combination of minor tweaks to Close Combat and the addition of the Up Close combat distance. Part of the thinking behind "up close" would be to give characters with a high WS more options/a fighting chance if they have no weapons. They could close the gap and put a better armed enemy at a disadvantage by moving inside their guard. I'd probably heavily borrow from the mechanics used when moving between arm's length and standard combat distance. This is a bit more of a flight of fancy, but I think that adding these rules would open up some possibilities with reach 0-1 weapons that have not really had a chance to shine.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: MarcoSkoll on February 21, 2016, 01:01:20 AM
I'm considering Invulnerable.
It's not necessarily a major problem, but Invulnerable is already one of the Daemonic exotic abilities. 

Quote
What about setting a BIV cap for Power Weapons? Let's say 5 is the max?
By that point, you're starting to get into the realm of Unnatural damage from the RIA drafts (I explain more fully in the post at the top of the page)

Most armour will be reduced to 0 and most characters will end up with BIV 5, so you will generally in effect just be rolling injury levels directly - which I think works in the context of "This weapon ignores reality", but that's not quite what power weapons are in my mind. To me, a disruption field weakens molecular bonds, effectively multiplying the force of the swing, but I don't think the material qualities become completely irrelevant.

~~~~~

Although, that would be interesting from a materials science viewpoint. Such things do happen at hypervelocity - at velocities exceeding the speed of sound within the material, the impactor is outrunning the propagation of forces. This means that the molecular bonds are torn one by one rather than being able to act in unison - the effect is like tearing through a phone book a page at a time, rather than trying to tear all the pages at once.

At these velocities, material strength becomes irrelevant. Even things like steel or titanium act like a liquid, with only density and momentum still playing a significant part:

(http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2013/04/hypervelocity_impact/12635237-1-eng-GB/Hypervelocity_Impact_medium_square.jpg)

If disruption fields did entirely negate material strength, that's more or less the kind of dent you'd see if you swung a power hammer into an anvil - iron, splashing like water. Interesting, but not really what I envision.


Quote
- Force Weapons: I want to throw together something that gives more options for Force Weapons, making them similar to Daemon Weapons in terms of having different effects.
That could be interesting, but I think it might be hard to make them feel different to daemon weapons. You don't want them to just feel like daemon weapons but without the risk of being possessed.

Quote
the addition of the Up Close combat distance.
As opposed to the official Up Close rules from the errata? I don't exactly like the current combat rules (which is why they're one of the main focuses on my Revised edition project), but the current Up Close rules actually work reasonably well in limiting the supremacy high reach weapons had in the original rules.

They can sometimes call for GM moderation, as I discovered when Sgt Kronen moved up close, circled while priming a krak grenade, then attached it to her opponent's back... which, rules as written, would have led to her hitting on 93 and her opponent dodging on -36. Even after GM's intervention though, she hit, making for one of the most brutal melee attacks I've ever seen in game*.
But that's more of an inherent problem with things like the double-jeopardy reach modifiers where they apply to both attacking and defending. I'm working on that kind of thing for the Revised project. Hopefully, my thoughts on reach modifiers will make engagement distances more fluid.

*Orla Riall once critted Sgt Gillmore in the groin with a Sollex Energy blade, but I think my favourite is the fate of the massive mutie NPC who leapt off a building at Van Helser's Rogue Trader (whose name I've completely forgotten, sorry). Ruaridh had seemed so chagrined at having rolled only one action, but had then managed to do so much damage with a critical chainsword hit that I ruled that the swing had been so perfectly timed with the beast's leap that it had completely bisected the brute under its own momentum.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Cortez on February 21, 2016, 10:54:16 AM
Quote
- Force Weapons: I want to throw together something that gives more options for Force Weapons, making them similar to Daemon Weapons in terms of having different effects.

I don't think giving force weapons lots of special rules like daemon swords really fits what they are and I already think the wp test for extra damage makes them feel special and different to regular swords/staffs etc.. You could give them a simple extra effect based on the psychers primary attribute though e.g. a pyrokinetic could cause bonus flaming damage, a telekinetic could have a knockback effect, a telepath could cause psychic head trauma (maybe with an opposed wp test to prevent it being too powerful, I'm not sure what you'd do for biomancy, daemonology or the more exotic chaos powers though.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: MarcoSkoll on February 21, 2016, 01:20:59 PM
That actually sounds like a quite good way of doing it - making the effect dependent on the user rather than the weapon might not necessarily make a huge difference to the game play (it's fairly rare for characters to end up using each others' weapons), but definitely seems more appropriate.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Raghnall on February 21, 2016, 09:52:12 PM
Force Weapons are arguably the most personal weapons in the game, and although I oppose making them into risk-free daemon weapons, Psykers should be able to channel their powers through a force blade in a variety of different ways relevant to their skill set, not just doing extra damage.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Alyster Wick on February 22, 2016, 01:23:57 AM
I don't think giving force weapons lots of special rules like daemon swords really fits what they are and I already think the wp test for extra damage makes them feel special and different to regular swords/staffs etc.. You could give them a simple extra effect based on the psychers primary attribute though e.g. a pyrokinetic could cause bonus flaming damage, a telekinetic could have a knockback effect, a telepath could cause psychic head trauma (maybe with an opposed wp test to prevent it being too powerful, I'm not sure what you'd do for biomancy, daemonology or the more exotic chaos powers though.

Force Weapons are arguably the most personal weapons in the game, and although I oppose making them into risk-free daemon weapons, Psykers should be able to channel their powers through a force blade in a variety of different ways relevant to their skill set, not just doing extra damage.

My response to both of these really weaves together. Cortez, the effects you through out there (catching things on fire, extra knock back, etc) are almost all what I had in my draft so far in terms of "additional effects". That said, I had not thought of linking the effects to the nature of the character's power, which is brilliant. In terms of your thoughts Raghnall, I absolutely agree. The intent is definitely not to make risk free daemon weapons, but rather to give a bit more character to force weapons.

I'm thinking that they'll function pretty similar to how they do now (with a damage bonus assigned if they're successful) but that an additional power will manifest on a double roll (so 55, 66, 77, etc). I don't know if that's too rare, I'd consider making the chance increase if the character "pushes" their power (per the RIPPA) but with an increased chance of bad things happening. I have to think more about potential negative effects from failing the test, as I'm not sure I want force weapons to function just like psychic powers, but if there are more upsides (or more interesting upsides) then it makes sense to give some downsides too.

For now I'm thinking effects would be along the lines of:

Pyromancy: Sets opponent on fire
Telekinetic: Massive knockback
Telepathic: Opposing character may not counter-attack, or possibly a free additional attack
Daemonology: Double Damage against Daemons/sets psykers on fire (or some such thing)
Biomancy: Rending (1) (or would d3 be more interesting?)

I'm not sure I want to tackle how Chaotic abilities work w/ Force Weapons (at least not at the moment). Is there precedent for chaos worshipers using force weapons? I've always thought of them more as "holy weapons" and not something the chaos powers would use. I'll do some research...

Quote
What about setting a BIV cap for Power Weapons? Let's say 5 is the max?

Most armour will be reduced to 0 and most characters will end up with BIV 5, so you will generally in effect just be rolling injury levels directly - which I think works in the context of "This weapon ignores reality", but that's not quite what power weapons are in my mind. To me, a disruption field weakens molecular bonds, effectively multiplying the force of the swing, but I don't think the material qualities become completely irrelevant.

Hmm, power weapons could be Rending (2) but only drop BIV to 4 or 5 at most. That way it'll make really tough targets less tough without lopping through average-toughness characters too easily. I think this may be the sweet spot I was looking for. That way it won't render super tough enemies completely useless, but will soften them up a bit.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: MarcoSkoll on February 22, 2016, 02:20:42 AM
I'm thinking that they'll function pretty similar to how they do now (with a damage bonus assigned if they're successful) but that an additional power will manifest on a double roll (so 55, 66, 77, etc). I don't know if that's too rare
I think one hit in ten would be somewhat underwhelming, from experience of just how often I don't manage to roll critical hits, although it may depend on the power of the bonuses and the damage that's already being caused.

Quote
Pyromancy: Sets opponent on fire
Telekinetic: Massive knockback
Telepathic: Opposing character may not counter-attack, or possibly a free additional attack
Daemonology: Double Damage against Daemons/sets psykers on fire (or some such thing)
Biomancy: Rending (1) (or would d3 be more interesting?)
Pyrokinesis: Makes sense.

Telekinesis: Makes sense.

Telepathy: Your opponent can't be counter-attacking, as he's already failed his parry roll if you're rolling damage against him, and I'm not necessarily sure how I'd justify a free attack. I'd instead consider some kind of "Mind War", where extra injury total is dealt if the victim fails a Wp test.

Daemonology: Force weapons currently already do double damage to daemons, to represent them dealing both physical and psychic damage. I wouldn't necessarily say it would be a bad thing for that to be toned down, but I'd like to see something to that effect stay (although you probably don't want to be stacking extra multipliers on top).
Rather than playing with the daemon side of things (which wouldn't often come into play in game), how about the "warping space and time" aspect? This might be a more appropriate place for the free attack (or action) you suggested for Telepathy.

Biomancy: I wouldn't ever personally randomise Rending. Damage is already random, and throwing in random Rending increases that exponentially. Sometimes you'll roll 5 damage and Rending(1), then sometimes it'll be 16 damage and Rending (3), which is the bad kind of unpredictable.
(I originally thought up Rending as a solution to a similar kind of thing. I used it to replace the Galthite Lacerator's multiple hit rules, after an incident involving such a weapon rolling three hits and a crit at the same time, and thus doing about 80 damage in one strike).

If you're doing it, I'd recommend a fixed Rending value.

Quote
Hmm, power weapons could be Rending (2) but only drop BIV to 4 or 5 at most. That way it'll make really tough targets less tough without lopping through average-toughness characters too easily. I think this may be the sweet spot I was looking for. That way it won't render super tough enemies completely useless, but will soften them up a bit.
That's likely to have much the same effect, given it's rare for characters to be BIV 8 or more.

While I am making such a tweak to Rending in the next version of the RIA, it's toned down a bit more. Currently, Rending caps the minimum modified BIV at 2, but the next version will cap it at 3 to balance Rending(3) slightly better.

Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Alyster Wick on February 23, 2016, 01:06:01 AM
I think one hit in ten would be somewhat underwhelming, from experience of just how often I don't manage to roll critical hits, although it may depend on the power of the bonuses and the damage that's already being caused.

Yeah, I think part of the problem is the varied level of effects. Lighting someone on fire, knocking them back extra far, or getting an extra attack could all be pretty solid 1 in 10 effects, but rending may be a bit underwhelming. That said, if they're paired with a damage bonus for just generally passing the WP test it could be pretty solid. That way there's a regular bonus (let's say +d6) and then there's that extra special bonus that only comes occasionally.

One additional though: Every psycher could have a "bonus threshold" of X% of the success rate, w/ X being Psy Rating times 10. So a character with 72 WP and a Psy Rating of 1 would need to roll 7 or lower to manifest (low chance) but a WP 81 character with a Psy Rating of 3 would only have to roll 24 to manifest (1 in 4). That sounds like a cumbersome amount of math, but remember that this bonus threshold is a fixed value. 

Telepathy: Your opponent can't be counter-attacking, as he's already failed his parry roll if you're rolling damage against him, and I'm not necessarily sure how I'd justify a free attack. I'd instead consider some kind of "Mind War", where extra injury total is dealt if the victim fails a Wp test.

Mind War could work (say an additional d6 to the head, ignoring armor? May be too powerful for an additional CC effect though, could possibly add a difficulty modifier).

Daemonology: ... Rather than playing with the daemon side of things (which wouldn't often come into play in game), how about the "warping space and time" aspect? This might be a more appropriate place for the free attack (or action) you suggested for Telepathy.

Makes sense to me, I may stick w/ the extra attack option. I posted without fully rereading the rules. As often happens, I get an idea while posting and instead of thinking it all the way through I just throw it out before it's really ready for prime time.

Biomancy: I wouldn't ever personally randomise Rending.

Rending (1) it is. The alternative would be to add a strength bonus (say 50%?) but I much prefer the idea that the psyker weakens the flesh of their opponent in an eerie and Cronenbergian way :)

Quote
Hmm, power weapons could be Rending (2) but only drop BIV to 4 or 5 at most.
That's likely to have much the same effect, given it's rare for characters to be BIV 8 or more

So I'll argue the point that while it is "much the same effect" that it's in the exceptions where the importance really lies. My previous proposal would have treated an LRB style marine the same as an extremely tough guardsmen. The Rending (2) w/ a cap of 4 or 5 allows for super-tough characters (Chaos Spawn, larger beasts, someone taking really powerful combat drugs) to not be nerfed in an inappropriate way by a power weapon. I think I found my sweet spot of compromise here. If there are other ideas I'm totally open, but this rules set for Power Weapons captures what I set out to achieve. Others are free to use the rules (or not) as they see fit. As a disclaimer, if playtesting reveals that the weapon is just too powerful I may change them back, but it's at least worth a try.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: MarcoSkoll on February 24, 2016, 02:09:31 AM
That sounds like a cumbersome amount of math, but remember that this bonus threshold is a fixed value.
Not necessarily, as a character's WP can change (and, if I recall, there were effects that could change a character's Psy Rating). It might be easier to run with the Critical mechanics I introduced in the Revised edition.

Quote
Mind War could work (say an additional d6 to the head, ignoring armor?
That might be a bit mean, yes, even if the opponent gets a Wp test.

Quote
The Rending (2) w/ a cap of 4 or 5 allows for super-tough characters (Chaos Spawn, larger beasts, someone taking really powerful combat drugs) to not be nerfed in an inappropriate way by a power weapon.
Whether it's 4 or 5 will make a fairly big difference.

With a cap of BIV 5, there's very few of my characters who wouldn't end up as BIV 5. (A couple have BIV 8, and I think I have one or two with BIV 4).

With a cap of BIV 4... I'd have to run some playtests, but that's not really limiting the impact of Rending much considering the high damage and Penetration involved. I recall the Redshift lasgun muzzle in the RIA, which I downgraded to Rending(1) because of various feedback about the combination of Rending(2) with Damage like 3D6+something (and that has a penalty against armour!)

Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Alyster Wick on March 22, 2016, 12:58:11 PM
Okay, so my current thoughts on Force Weapons are to perhaps try a different route, one in which opting to channel your discipline through the attack is essentially using a psychic power (with variable difficulties based on the power) at the moment of the strike. This may not sound too far off what happens currently but there would be some differences in that it would allow for some quite powerful abilities to be used alongside an appropriate modifier. Plus in this circumstance the power would/could potentially replace the extra damage (or maybe the extra damage always manifests as +1 per full 10 the WP test is passed by, meaning that higher difficulty powers automatically serve as a check to increased damage?).

Honestly that's more to close out (temporarily) my ranting on Force Weapons. What I really wanted to post about is that I'm working on a new weapons list for basic close combat weapons. Right now I have 52 basic weapons listed (an improvement on the 16 listed in the LRB) and I'm going to work on drafting rules over the next number of days.

To give a taste of what I'm thinking, I am going to give a run at adding "Attack Penalty" as a field in addition to "Parry Penalty". This is going to be 0 for a decent amount of weapons (after all, what's the point of even having a WS if it's always modified?) but it will come into play with heavier weapons.

I'm also attempting to add some differentiation with variable reach weapons. For instance, Enforcer Batons (like modern police batons), chains, and sais. Batons and sais can be swung for reach two or the grip modified for reach 1 (or zero, I'm playing around with that idea), while a chain can be swung for reach 3 or wrapped around the fist for reach zero.

I'm also tweaking Parry Penalties rudimentarily based on how many blades/heads a weapon has. For instance, a Gladius vs. a Machete, the gladius will have the better PP because it is double bladed and (presumably) puts you in a better position to counter-attack regardless of where your blade ends up after fending off a blow versus the single blade on a machete. Same principle with a hatchet versus a double-headed hand axe. 

Let me be very clear at this point: I am no weapons expert. If there are any out there, feel free to poke holes in my thinking. However, be warned that even if you do I will likely forge on as I think we all deserve a wider range of close combat weapons than we currently have (in the absence of production suggestions).

I'm also looking to utilize d3 systems more. Particularly I'm thinking of relying more heavily on d3s for "stabby" weapons (Rapier, Ice Pick) as a way to slightly lift the minimum damage while limiting the maximum. For instance, a Rapier may do 3d3 as opposed to a standard sword's 2d6 (my goal is to have "real" names for all swords, but I've yet find one that satisfies the need for a regular old sword, though I'm open to suggestion). My thinking here is that there would be fewer grazes or near misses with the stabby weapons, but you're never really going to hack something off. Again, I'm not a weapons expert, I am concerned with finding a line of logic and sticking with it though.

The last thought I have (and I'd like some feedback on this) is to possibly introduce Maximum and Minimum damage values. These would not be standard values with their own columns (as most weapons wouldn't have a Max or Min) but would be in the special rules section when relevant. My thinking is that they open up a new and intriguing route for variation. Specifically, I was doing the mental math on d10 versus 2d6 versus 2d6 (Max: 10). 2d6 (Max:10) is an interesting alternative choice to a standard d10, giving it a 7 in 12 chance to do 7+ damage as opposed to a 1 in 2 chance at 6+ for a standard d10. Sure, one could argue 2d6 is only a slight improvement (with an additional 1 in 12 shot to do 11+ damage) but it's still significant. I like the Min/Max idea as it allows for some interesting statistical scenarios where you're able to replicate the Maximum value of a different dice role (the d10 example above) while really changing the odds of which numbers will occur.

I'm not married to the idea of the Max/Mins, but the idea just struck me and it intrigues me. With all of the new weapon types I plotted out I'm also looking for avenues of differentiation, and this seemed like a good one to me.

Any thoughts? I'm hoping to be able to post a sample table in the next week or so. I'm also thinking of adding in a caveat that the table it intended to be used with your revised Reach system Marco (as I think that makes things much more interesting with the Optimal Reach system). This will also be dependent on the mechanic involving the exact inches between players mattering, so I'm potentially putting the cart a little bit before the horse here. Probably should have said that up front.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: MarcoSkoll on March 22, 2016, 05:26:34 PM
This is going to be 0 for a decent amount of weapons (after all, what's the point of even having a WS if it's always modified?)
Ideally, I'd agree. However, having the limits of trying to work (as far as possible) within the existing system means I think it's either going to have to be otherwise for IRE or I introduce bonuses for parrying; I do want the opposed mechanic (which is used quite extensively throughout IRE), but it does need something to balance it.

For an unopposed system like 1st edition though, yeah.

Quote
I'm also looking to utilize d3 systems more. Particularly I'm thinking of relying more heavily on d3s for "stabby" weapons (Rapier, Ice Pick) as a way to slightly lift the minimum damage while limiting the maximum. For instance, a Rapier may do 3d3 as opposed to a standard sword's 2d6 (my goal is to have "real" names for all swords, but I've yet find one that satisfies the need for a regular old sword, though I'm open to suggestion)
I haven't been using D3s that much in my drafts for the IRE armoury, but that's an interesting thought.

I'm currently using the Arming sword (often called the Knightly sword, but that name seems less suitable, given that "Knight" means other things in 40k)) as the "basic" sword in my notes. It's a fairly classic European one-handed mediaeval sword, and avoids being too visibly associated with any particular country.

Quote
The last thought I have (and I'd like some feedback on this) is to possibly introduce Maximum and Minimum damage values.
By Only War, the 40kRP system had something like that in the Primitive and Proven characteristics. Primitive (7) means that any single die that rolls over 7 is treated as 7 (although can still trigger Righteous Fury on a natural 10). Proven (3) is the reverse. Any single die under 3 is treated as 3.

I had considered adopting the idea for parts of the RIA, but with Inquisitor not being built on solely D10s (and their D5 derivatives) and the fact I already have Rending, Trivial, Tearing* (and, at one point, "Anti-Tearing" is used) to play with, I've already got a lot of control over the statistics, so I thought it would just be too much more complexity.

*Which was originally borrowed from 40kRP of course, but extending it to the Tearing(X) concept adds options.

Quote
This will also be dependent on the mechanic involving the exact inches between players mattering, so I'm potentially putting the cart a little bit before the horse here.
Well, we'll see where that goes when I've got a draft, but I'll no doubt be adjusting things a few times based on feedback before we're done.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Alyster Wick on March 31, 2016, 03:36:19 AM
I'm currently using the Arming sword (often called the Knightly sword, but that name seems less suitable, given that "Knight" means other things in 40k))

You know, this got me thinking and I ultimately decided to go with "Gothic Sword". It's non-sense from a real-world standpoint, but I feel like Gothic is a good descriptor for the generic sword, given the universe.

By Only War, the 40kRP system had something like that in the Primitive and Proven characteristics. Primitive (7) means that any single die that rolls over 7 is treated as 7 (although can still trigger Righteous Fury on a natural 10). Proven (3) is the reverse. Any single die under 3 is treated as 3.

I had considered adopting the idea for parts of the RIA, but with Inquisitor not being built on solely D10s (and their D5 derivatives) and the fact I already have Rending, Trivial, Tearing* (and, at one point, "Anti-Tearing" is used) to play with, I've already got a lot of control over the statistics, so I thought it would just be too much more complexity.

I actually really like all of this. Primitive and Proven are much better than min and max, though for the draft I'm working on I've used min and max since they're compact and easily fit in the damage column. This makes it easier to remember as opposed to having 2d6 as the damage value then a special rule limiting or bolstering that value.

The funny thing though is that I had never considered using d5 until I read this! No idea why that never crossed my mind as d5s offer up much more variety than d3s.

________________________________________

On to the rules preview though! I hope folks will find this interesting, it's the rough draft of all the Blade type weapons I currently have (excluding some hybrid weapons that can count as bladed or something else). To help understand what's below, you should know that all weapons now have a "Type". This was originally meant just to help me sort things out, but I realized that it was a fun way to offer some variety. Currently there are no special rules associated with Bladed weapons, though each "type" will have some unique upgrades (Bladed weapons have things like Serrated and Harpe blades). Polearms (improved chance of crit at their optimal range and the ability to be used as a Staff after a destroyed result) or Axes (double strength bonus on the charge) offer up more interesting possibilities.

Attack Penalties have been dealt with earlier in the post. Some weapons have variably Reaches, meaning they can be held in different positions to different effect (which is only meaningful when using Optimal Range Rules, which are still being worked on). Lastly, there are some Special Rules that aren't fully spelled out here. To give you a flavor, Compact weapons are easier to hide, Common weapons offer a bonus when a character tries to convince an authority figure that it's just something mundane, and Prestige weapons have alternate Penalty Profiles if the user is an expert in that weapon. Oh yes, and Crude weapons can't be upgrades (no mono-molecular shivs, power-hand-picks, or chain-cleavers...well, maybe I should reconsider chain-cleavers...).

Anyway, enough typing, here are the weapons!

(http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx83/alysterwick/Close%20Combat%20Weapon%20Revision%20-%20Bladed_zps3y1njjn6.png) (http://s744.photobucket.com/user/alysterwick/media/Close%20Combat%20Weapon%20Revision%20-%20Bladed_zps3y1njjn6.png.html)

What do people think? Would they use something like this? Currently I have about triple the number of weapons listed out waiting for rules and tons of notes on additional special rules, optional upgrades, special abilities, unique weapons, etc. Ideally this would mean about 5 times more mundane weapons as currently listed in the Rule Book with tons more possibilities when you factor in the various ways you can modify these weapons. Hopefully this makes some of my earlier ranting make more sense.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Raghnall on March 31, 2016, 04:13:06 PM
You know, this got me thinking and I ultimately decided to go with "Gothic Sword". It's non-sense from a real-world standpoint, but I feel like Gothic is a good descriptor for the generic sword, given the universe.
Actually, 'gothic sword' makes perfect sense from a real world standpoint. It would be a sword wielded by the ancient germanic people known as the Goths, who played a significant role in the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and the start of the middle ages. Something like this:
http://www.outfit4events.com/runtime/cache/images/productFull/jk_0036-03.JPG (http://www.outfit4events.com/runtime/cache/images/productFull/jk_0036-03.JPG)
Seems and appropriate name.

Quote
I actually really like all of this. Primitive and Proven are much better than min and max, though for the draft I'm working on I've used min and max since they're compact and easily fit in the damage column.
Well you could always abbreviate Primitive and Proven as Pri and Pro, or something along those lines.

Quote
(http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx83/alysterwick/Close%20Combat%20Weapon%20Revision%20-%20Bladed_zps3y1njjn6.png) (http://s744.photobucket.com/user/alysterwick/media/Close%20Combat%20Weapon%20Revision%20-%20Bladed_zps3y1njjn6.png.html)
Seems good for the most part, but I have to query whether the rules for the sabre are quite right. It is still a one-handed sword, and in my mind, all of the one handed swords should be of roughly equal power, with some differences to add variety. With the rules as they stand, it is objectively inferior to the gothic sword, with equal reach and attack penalty, but a worse parry penalty and a lower cap on damage.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: MarcoSkoll on March 31, 2016, 05:19:54 PM
That looks like a pretty good draft. There are a few things I'd challenge - while I still don't consider myself an expert, I've been trying to learn more about hand to hand combat recently, rather than ignorantly writing rules for something I have no understanding of!).

As far as I know:
- A broadsword is a basket hilted sword (a little like a thick-bladed rapier) not really the large sword you've portrayed it as here.

- "Short sword" and "great sword" are really the kind of general categories you're trying to eliminate with the "Gothic Sword", not specific weapons.
For example, "great sword" would include things like the Claymore (which comes from Gaelic that literally translates as "great sword") and Zweihander that you've already got on the list.

- While the bastard sword is called a "hand and a half sword", it doesn't really mean it's a sword you would use like the original rulebook's suggestion.
They're primarily a two handed sword, but are just about light enough to be (barely) controllable one handed. This provides the wielder with the chance to swap to one hand mid-swing, giving him more reach than would be possible if he had to keep both hands on the sword, and just about enough control to retain and regain control of his weapon afterwards.

It is true that a bastard sword can be wielded more than one way, but rather than a choice between one hand and two hands, it's more one between one-and-a-half hands (using a bastard sword technique) and two hands (using a long sword technique) - whether your other hand is on the hilt some of the time or all of the time.

~~~~~

I don't know what your plans are regarding the Two-Handed rule, although I'm building something one in as an integral part of the IRE melee rules.

Normally, one handed attacks get to use the full strength bonus (as a blow gets a lot of its power from the legs and torso).
Attacks and weapons with the two handed characteristic only benefit from a character's full strength if used in both hands, and suffer a -20 penalty if performed with one hand.
(Currently, I'm treating dual wielding as a two handed attack, as actually trying to stab someone with two knives at once means not being able to get the full power of the leg/torso muscles behind either).

Whether "Great" will be its own rule (somewhat like already exists in the LRB), I don't yet know. Possibly, I'll just establish melee weapon encumbrance instead.

Seems good for the most part, but I have to query whether the rules for the sabre are quite right. It is still a one-handed sword, and in my mind, all of the one handed swords should be of roughly equal power, with some differences to add variety.
For the sabre, it was only really intended to be used for chopping at opponents as you galloped past. It was a bit unwieldy, so not great for actually fencing with an opponent.

That said, I've seen arguments that it might have been harder to parry, as the curve gave its wielder some control past the opponent's blade (for example, if they try and knock your blade left, twisting the sword right brings the tip around to cut across your opponent).

I'm personally considering a "Flexible" rule in IRE, somewhat like already exists for the neural whip in the LRB, where certain weapons are harder to parry.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Cortez on March 31, 2016, 08:01:17 PM
One of the problems with sword type names is that they often get re-used in later periods or mis-used by historians/writers. A good example of this is the Claymore which can refer either two the Scottish greatsword of the middle ages (another ambiguous term) or the basket hilted backsword of the late 17th/18th centuries.

The broadsword is another one of these as it usually refers to a basket hilted backsword (similar to the claymore), but is also used (possibly incorrectly, it's impossible to say for sure) by historians to refer to a type of single handed sidesword/arming sword used as a secondary weapon by knights rather than as their primary weapon (which would probably be something more suitable for piercing plate armour such as a mace, pollaxe or greatsword).

Bastard swords are another problem name as they seem to be more correctly called longswords in the 15th/16th centuries and were normally used with two hands although there were techniques for using them with one hand. The bastard sword is more correctly described by Joseph Swetham in 1617 as midway in length between a shortsword and a longsword. The masaters of defence contest organised by Henry VIII in 1540 also lists two hande sworde, bastard sworde and longe sworde as separate items.

Long swords themselves can also refer to the swords of the Viking/Anglo-Saxon period or the Elizabethan 4ft long rapier (which are really cool looking swords by the way) and the name is often mis-used to refer to arming swords (in a similar manner to broadswords)

So essentially I wouldn't worry too much about correct names when it comes to swords, no one else does  ;D

What is more important is to use names that most people will understand rather than getting into technicalities.

For example using the names from the rulebook:

Short sword: I always tend to use the Gladius as my archetype for this weapon.You could also use the Seax or Greek Xiphos as your inspiration. i.e a thrusting weapon about 2-2 1/2 ft in length.

Sword: The 'long' sword of the early middle ages would be my primary archetype for this weapon. i.e. about 3ft long, balanced, good at slashing and thrusting.

Bastard Sword: The renaissance era longsword is probably the closest to the stereotypical view of this weapon. i.e. Should be primarily used in two hands, penalty for one handed use. 3-4ft long

Great Sword: Medieval Claymore or German Zweihander. i.e. a Two handed weapon.

Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Cortez on March 31, 2016, 09:22:13 PM
So some further thoughts on this.

These are the main sword archetypes that I would like to see included, avoiding weapons that I feel are too similar to really distinguish between each other.

1. Short Sword. I don't really see the need to include weapons such as the gladius as a separate entity as I tend to view a short sword as a Gladius.

2. Sword. If you want to avoid generic names then you may want to call it an arming sword, side sword or long sword (which is what it is referred to in D&D).

3. Bastard Sword. Renaissance era long sword, best to keep to the more familiar terminology though.

4. Great Sword. You may want to call it a Zweihander or a Claymore, but I would again recommend sticking with the familiar terminolgy.

5. Rapier. You may want to include different variations such as the Elizabethan 4ft long variety

6. Epee? I'm not sure on this one, as is there enough difference between this weapon and the rapier.

7. Backsword. Basket hilted, single edged sword. A.K.A. Claymore or Broadsword. You may want to include rules for blade heavy cavalry versions.

8. Sabre. n.b. there are infantry as well as cavalry versions of this sword and they are often balanced fencing weapons as well as the blade heavy versions.

9. Scimitar.

10. Falchion. Similar to the scimitar, but with a less pronounced curve. I'm not sure if both weapons are different enough. Also similar to the sabre.

11. Katana.

12. Wakizashi. Shorter version of the katana.

13. Odachi/Nodachi. Japanese great sword.

14. Tulwar? Not sure if this would be sufficiently different to the sabre/scimitar/falchion to justify as a separate entity.

I'm not really familiar with Chinese swords. What I've seen in movies however look similar to european weapons.

Other Knife type weapons you may want to consider are the poniard, main gauche and sword breaker. Which were all used as parrying weapons.

p.s. If you want to include all the possible variations and feel that you can come up with rules that make them distinctive then feel free.

p.p.s. I realise that a lot of the terms that I use for these weapons were influenced by Dungeons and Dragons rather than reality  ::)
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: MarcoSkoll on March 31, 2016, 11:54:25 PM
One of the problems with sword type names is that they often get re-used in later periods or mis-used by historians/writers.
Well, there's also a continuum. With designs slowly evolving with time (or geography), how one categorises a given example today is somewhat subjective. 

There's a few terms that are perhaps ambiguous enough to abandon entirely ("broad sword" and "long sword" are perhaps candidates) but a term like "Claymore" is in common parlance much more strongly associated with William Wallace (such as via the horrendously historically inaccurate Braveheart) than with the Jacobites.

Quote
Bastard swords are another problem name as they seem to be more correctly called longswords in the 15th/16th centuries
My understanding is that at the time "long sword" primarily referred to technique (akin to the term "half sword") rather than a weapon, although has come to retrospectively refer to the kind of weapon you would use with such a technique.

Other Knife type weapons you may want to consider are the poniard, main gauche and sword breaker. Which were all used as parrying weapons.
While the sword breaker is interesting, it's quite a misnomer. (Breaking a properly tempered steel blade with your off-hand is... unlikely). More of a sword trapper, and even then it's only likely to work against certain types of blade.

There's a possibility that trapping weapons could be handled with grapple rules - which is something I'm working on for IRE, but I'd need to have the framework to make any suggestions for how to do it.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Alyster Wick on April 01, 2016, 12:41:18 AM
Lots of great feedback, thanks! There's too many interacting quotes to deal with so stay with me here.

On the generic names (Short Sword, Great Sword) I will look at appropriate alternatives. My thinking with the Gladius was to make it a little more "special" with the 2d5 as opposed to d10. I'm likely to just replace "short sword" with something more specific. For Great Sword I was going for something that defied characterization and lived more in the world of complete fantasy, like Cloud's sword from Final Fantasy (okay, maybe that's an extreme case). Which brings me to a broader point, the difficulty in melding real world with fantasy. I do think there is a place for improbably scaled (cough, heroically, cough) weapons in a game like Inquisitor. That said, I could come up with a name that is punchier (much like the Gothic sword in place of the generic "sword").

Somewhat along those lines, what you're saying about the Bastard sword Marco makes sense, but this may be a situation in which faithfulness to reality takes a back seat to rules dynamics. Having a Bastard sword that can be wielded the way the rulebook describes it creates an interesting variation that I think it worth the logical inconsistency.

For Cortez, I'm going to check out some of those versions you mentioned that I don't have represented. For the record, I'm looking to add the Kopis (as shorter sword that hits like an axe) but I had been thinking about Falchions and Scimitars. I will want to do more research on the practical differences between the two and the difference between curves blade versus straight blade swords.

This brings be (briefly) to the Saber. My thinking with that one was more to represent a sword that was primarily ceremonial (but still lethal) as opposed to representing a cavalry sword. This is coming at it from a more modern view (or modern, low-info, stereotypical view perhaps) but it accomplishes the goal I want. That said, the idea of a distinctly cavalry weapon is interesting, but best left for another day. I'll lump in the idea of the parrying blades with that too, as I love the idea but that may be a bridge too far at the moment (at least for me mentally).

As of right now, I'm likely to do a little bit of tweaking to the table as-is (taking your wonderful feedback into consideration) but I'm also thinking that I'll dive into the other weapon categories before doing a complete overhaul. I want to make sure I didn't over-extend myself here with dice-combinations. In principal I'm thinking axes will be mostly Reach 2 but with higher damages (compared to the reach 2 swords and most of the reach 3 ones) and worse parry penalties. However once I start looking at the possibilities I've already taken up I don't want to find out that I've exhausted the possibilities on my category of weapon.

Again, thank you all for the feedback, I hope to put it to good use (even if it isn't all acted upon immediately). On the whole though it sounds like people are at least interested, which is a positive for me.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Cortez on April 01, 2016, 10:21:58 AM
For Great Sword I was going for something that defied characterization and lived more in the world of complete fantasy, like Cloud's sword from Final Fantasy (okay, maybe that's an extreme case). Which brings me to a broader point, the difficulty in melding real world with fantasy. I do think there is a place for improbably scaled (cough, heroically, cough) weapons in a game like Inquisitor. 


You may want to have a look at the Zanbato (horse slaying sword) as your inspiration for such swords. These are very popular in Japanese anime and computer games.


There's a few terms that are perhaps ambiguous enough to abandon entirely ("broad sword" and "long sword" are perhaps candidates) but a term like "Claymore" is in common parlance much more strongly associated with William Wallace (such as via the horrendously historically inaccurate Braveheart) than with the Jacobites.


For me it's the other way round, when you say Claymore I immediately think of Bonny Prince Charlie, the Highland charge, Rob Roy, Kidnapped etc. So for me I'll always view the Claymore as the basket hilted Jacobite era variety.

Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: Alyster Wick on April 08, 2016, 11:44:04 PM
Two things I'd like to get comments on:

1) Adding + and - categories to Reach. This is kind of a backdoor way to expand the versatility of ranges without adding even more (and while keeping them conveniently within the construct of 1 Reach=1 inch). A + or - basically comes into play when you're dealing with weapons of your own class at their ideal range, but is otherwise irrelevant. For example, if a Zweihander at 3+ reach goes against a Gothic Sword at a flat 3 and they are both at their ideal range, the Gothic Sword will lose its ideal range bonus, making the Zweihander a slightly better weapon at ideal range.

This is a small way to differentiate very similar weapons. I originally conceived it as only a + system but I figured the minus would make sense too then. I'm considering making most axes reach 2+ to give them an advantage over short swords, because AXES!!!! I dunno, is this too in the weeds? I feel like it's only useful if there are a TON of weapons. On that note:

2) So I have an ever expanding list of weapons. Below I've pasted everything I've got right now. I want to get thoughts on if I'm missing anything. Also, it'd be good to get thoughts on cutting it down, but I think I want to try making rules for all of these first and then see where we are. Loosely, these weapons are grouped together by type (Axe, Blade, Blunt, Fluid, Hand-to-Hand, Polearm), then by reach (lowest to highest) with a bunch of random weapons thrown at the end. Without further rambling:

Tomahawk
Fell Axe
Labrys (Double Bit)
Broad Axe
Brute (Tusk) Axe (primitive but heavy Axe, pointy rock/bone on a stick)
Hatchet
Splitting Maul
Pick Axe
Battle Axe
Great Axe
Bardiche
Klaive
Push-Dagger
Tessen (Bladed Fan)
Shiv
Combat Knife
Hand Pick (like ice pick)
Razor
Knife
Kama/Sickle
Cleaver
Gladius
Machete
Macuahuitl (Mayan Sword)
Xiphos
Kopis
Sabre
Bastard Sword
Broad Sword
Gothic Sword
Claymore
Katana
Rapier
Zanbato
Zweihander
Sai
Bayonet
Kusari-Gama/Sickle on a Chain
Black Jack
Collapsable Baton
Improvised Weapon
Mallet
Truncheon
Club
Cudgel
Hammer
Kendo-Sticks
Mace
Bokken
Great Hammer
Maul
Staff
Tonfa
Improvised Weapon
Flail
Mourning Star
Ball & Chain
Bladed Whip
Whip
Nunchaku
Nine Tails
Chain (wrapped, whip)
Armored Ganutlet
Ashiko
Brass Knuckles
Heavy Object
Kakute
Knuckle Dusters
Neko-Te (claw-rings)
Unarmed
Bladed Gauntlet
Halbred
Hunting Spear
Lance
Pike
Poleax
Spear
Trident
Katar
Roman Scissor
Tiger Claw
Chakram
Weighted Chain (Flying Hammer, Meteor Hammer?)
Wind and Fire Wheel
Shuriken
Javelin
Flying Guillotine
Urumi (short and long?)
Rope Dart

Thoughts? Am I crazy?
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: MarcoSkoll on April 08, 2016, 11:53:41 PM
Two things I'd like to get comments on:
I can't say much, as I should be sleeping for the IGT but:

Quote
1) Adding + and - categories to Reach.
It's an interesting idea, but cancelling the other player's bonuses (and, if I'm reading it right, only if they match?) is a little odd.

What if - meant that the weapon's ideal range bonus was 0, but + meant it was +20? (Rather than the normal +10). It's relatively simple, meaning certain weapons will more (or less) care about their optimum ranges.
It could be particularly versatile if stacked with the attack penalty mechanic. For example, an extra -10 attack penalty alongside a 3+ reach would effectively be a -10 penalty for not being at optimum range.

Quote
2) So I have an ever expanding list of weapons.
This is too much for me to read through now, particularly as I'm sure I'd have to look some of it up.
Title: Re: Revised CCW
Post by: TallulahBelle on July 11, 2016, 03:18:36 PM
One random Thing/question about chainswords. They carry a -25% to parry are you going to add anything bout chain vs chain as to be honest id think even though the chaiinsword is hard to parry in canon theres a justification for chain v chain to be a more equal fight I.E the chainsword should discount at least some of the -%

I know gaunt vs the blueblood commander talks about using revesed chain direction to parry a chainblow idk something like dropping the % too a -10 maybe still takes the weight and power into consideration but shows the weapons are equally matched? Maybe an eviscerator vs chainsword at -15.

As for melee weapons falchions I tended to find the curve made parrying easier whereas the sabre I tended to struggle to parry a backsword/arming sword due to the weight difference (using blunt reenactors blades) so that could be something worth doing to make them disctinct from each other.

As for chinese blades... My experience is more limited eith eastern blades BUT the chinese greatsword is VERY different to its western counterpart. Having a very different blade profile think SINBAD style shape with the curve back towards the wielder at the top but not as pronounced as a scimitar. The chinese greatsword gets allot of its power from the weight balance being very axe like the curve of the blade giving that sort of swing momentum so maybe stat it with some sort of middle ground?

Japanese blades tend to focus on sharp with one cut off the draw fighting styles so would suffer in western style clanging sword duels.

Epee vs sabre the sabre is designed as a slashing blade that can stab and the epee is the reverse. Sabres give rise to the prussian/german military (Pre ww2) classical dueling scars of literature (long shallow cuts thatgive the villain scar style wound) so nasty wounds that are going to hurt enough people stop  whereas the epee the slashing is knife slash style wearing down an opponent through blood loss while you wait for the opportunity to run the guy through.

At least based in my training and experience. I prefer sabres because the fighting style is better for larp/reenacting longncutting blows with deft blocking and can parry the epee is primarily stab which isn't really safe I would say sabres in terms of a duelling sabre/military sabre would be more damage than parry speed in its weighting but still better parry than a rapier and the epee being faster than the sabre being more parry less damage.

Marco's trivial damage could possibly work really well for a rapier small wpunds that can deftlynslide into chinks of armour and have the potential to be really nasty whilst carrying the challenge of finding the point to get into. Maybe a - to parry due to the speed involved idk