Author Topic: IRE - Inquisitor Revised Edition project  (Read 17254 times)

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4584
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
IRE - Inquisitor Revised Edition project
« on: August 23, 2013, 12:15:02 PM »
Link to latest version (Alpha V0.2.0.3 - Released 8th March):

http://www.mediafire.com/file/pgup1aw4o2vkh2m/Inquisitor+Revised+Edition+Alpha+V0-2-0-3.pdf

Latest Crib Sheet (V1 for IRE V0.2.0.3 - Released 4th April):
http://www.mediafire.com/file/0oo6czattlu269p/Inquisitor+Revised+Edition+V_0_2_0_3+Crib+Sheet+V1.pdf



Original post:

If you're reading this, I know a lot of you aren't so much "rules people" - and I am somewhat aware that I have a bit of a habit of being rather forceful in my opinions of playing the game.

However, this project really does need input and feedback from the full spectrum of the Inquisitor community and is almost moot if it isn't a collective effort. So, if you're willing, I would very much appreciate it if you'd chip in with your comments and criticism. I (and others) may have counter-comments and critique, but discussion is what we need!

And with that said, what is this project?

I'm guessing there's one thing most of you probably agree with me on: Inquisitor, as a game, has problems. 12 years, hundreds of players, thousands of characters and some very large number of games have turned up a great many flaws.

Although the rumours of a new Inquisition themed game box are intriguing, the chance that the rules within will prove to be the second edition that Inquisitor needs are just about diddly squat. Any such project is going to have to come from the community... and while PrecinctOmega previously worked on an Inquisitor 2 ruleset, that project seems to be on hiatus (or worse) and didn't necessarily represent a consensus.

So, I think it's well worth trying to start such a project again.

This first post is mostly more of that bad habit of mine - a post that's mostly just a brainstorm; some of it is from the foetid depths of my mind, although other parts may well have been stolen from other places like Dark Heresy or Infinity first.
You'll likely notice that I'm not really looking to cut detail from the game - I feel it's part of what makes Inquisitor "Inquisitor", so I'd prefer to try streamlining things before we try simplifying them, although it is always an ultimate option.

So, without further ado, Marco-brand waffle:



General dice rolling:
This is going somewhat against previous convention, but it's a pretty damn clever idea from Infinity that makes it very fast and easy to include opposed rolling within the rules.

How much a roll passes by is the number on the dice (rather than how much below the target number has been rolled); even for the best mental mathematicians, it's far faster to see that a roll of 15 has passed by 15 than to have to subtract from the target number of 57 to get a pass of 42.

The distribution is essentially the same, just flipped - the absence of a 0 result (as 00 on a d100 is typically 100) to give a "just passed" result does mean that passes are increased by a single point, but the convenience strongly outweighs this, I feel.

~~~~~

Actions (and Reactions):
I'd like to see a greater degree of reactive play, giving characters more options to act out of sequence - this isn't entirely out of place, as it already occurs in the game with Overwatch and the IGT version of Lightning Reflexes.

It always seems funny that characters can run across open ground in front of armed mercenaries who, because they haven't overwatched, just ignore it.

My core idea here would be to allow characters to reserve actions to use as reactions.

The exact mechanics aren't completely set yet, but I'm imagining three ways in which characters might reserve reactions:
- Sacrificing action dice - each die sacrificed saves up a reaction.
- Declaring a "Wary" action - if the action succeeds, it saves up a reaction. (This might immediately seem less useful than the above, only having a chance of working, but it would be useful if declared later in the turn - not risking the chance of succeeding on important actions, or to use up that last action that you can't think what to do with).
- A "Ready" state where characters can take certain reactions without needing to reserve reactions, but any other action/reaction breaks the state. For example, Overwatch might generate a Ready state that gives free shooting reactions vs. characters in a given area.

This may also probably come with increasing speed values by a point (at least, on average).
Partly to stop saving reactions making the game sluggish, but also to tie into my house rule of 3+ actions until the action's about to kick off.
In this way, the start of the game could have the characters moving about faster (using all their action dice as actions), not watching their backs just yet, but later on through the game, they might be more wary and thus slower (saving reactions based on the perceived threat).

Hence, a character running around the side of a building he believes is clear might be faster and less wary, but one running past a building he knows is occupied might be slower about it.

My concern here is that this might be more time consuming, with variable action counts, reactions interrupting turns, etc.
It could work (and could be pretty cool) but I think it definitely needs some tests to suss out the pros and cons.

~~~~~

Risky Actions:
The maths of risky actions is a bit of a problem. As the character's speed increases, the chances of getting more ones than sixes also increases. What's a 16.7% chance on one die, is 25% on two, up to ~36% by Speed 6.

Given high speed characters are also more likely to have enough successful actions to reach the risky one (and thus fail it), this creates a bit of an odd effect that the more agile and alert characters are the clumsy ones.
It's also not possible to control the riskiness of an action. All risky actions are equally risky.

I know PrecinctOmega was also looking to move away from Risky Actions with his INQ2.0, making it a separate D10 roll, with a target number depending on riskiness.
My inclination here is to do much the same - personally, I'd adopt the system used in the Revised Armoury, where the units digit of a die roll is used to determine the risk of an action.

~~~~~

Movement:
There's not strictly anything wrong with most of movement.

However, I would prefer to move to a system closer to Dark Heresy for determining things like climbing and jumping, replacing Risky actions with Hazardous Strength/Agility rolls.

It's also an area where, if better thought out encumbrance rules were being instated, I'd like them to have some of their effect. For example, partially over-encumbered characters might take penalties to their movement rates, rather than their speed values.

~~~~~

Damage and Injury:
I think this is one of the more problematic areas in the rules.

I feel it's important to have a progressively debilitating sequence of injuries, as a "hit point" system doesn't work well for the player-vs-player play of Inquisitor (victory going to whomever doesn't run out of hit points first) or even its heroic style. Where's the thrill in a character heroically fighting through their injuries if those injuries don't actually make it harder for them?

Dark Heresy's system is an improvement, but it is still ultimately hit points until you reach critical damage. (When playing Dark Heresy, characters/enemies taking a boltgun to the face and not reacting at all because they've still got two wounds left afterwards... it feels wrong).

My best theory is to work from the current solution. It's not bad (I think my re-format helps) - it just needs more clarity and refinement.

On this front, I would genuinely like to keep mechanics like Rending, Trivial and Tearing such as I use in the Revised Armoury. I know they are a little more complicated than just adding or subtracting from the damage roll, but they also
allow for a wider range of variation (and, in many cases, actually speed things up).

None are overwhelmingly complicated effects - but if people are opposed, I'm entirely prepared to just leave them for a  2nd edition version of the Revised Armoury.

~~~~~

Close combat:
The problems I see with close combat:

- It's usually all the same thing. For many characters, the only actions worth declaring are attack (or advance and attack), defend (although that comes in parry or dodge flavours) or run away. Actions like circle* are usually unheard of, so the only movement is normally the dodge or (occasionally) an acrobatic character.
I'd like to encourage more movement. Any sustained fight from a film or TV show will usually involve trekking over a wide area.
* One of my characters does use it as part of a "signature move" - Move Up-close; Circle opponent & prime grenade; unarmed Attack to attach grenade. It fits a character who has experience fighting Traitor Marines in close quarters (and who has probably, background wise, killed the most Astartes of any of my characters).

- Combat is a little too weighted towards having to wear down your opponent's parry/dodge chance first. While a reducing chance of defence is realistic and helps weight things against outnumbered characters, I think it would be better if initial parry chances were lower and the successive penalties were milder.

This could also allow the phasing out of the halving WS, which usually results in several moments of muttering about mental arithmetic in order to work out what parry chance #3 is going to be.

What I have in mind is to make close combat opposed rolling. If a hit roll passes by 19, the parry will have to beat that.* This will naturally make parrying/dodging harder, so we could simplify and reduce the subsequent parry modifier to perhaps a straight -10 or -20, which would be much easier to add up during game play.
*This may require Critical rolls to be rethought a bit (else they'd be the most easily parried), but I'm thinking possibly something similar to the Hazard rules again - something like a units die of 1 is a critical hit.

Manoeuvring could also be included as a modifier to a combat roll - making the attack (or perhaps even defence) more difficult, but also making its opposing roll more of a challenge.
So, if a character wished to try and circle to the right to attack their opponent, that might be a -20 to hit, but also a -20 to the parry/dodge. With the right modifiers, it could make fights much more mobile and interesting.
Similarly, add in the possibility of trying to manoeuvre opponents.

Inspired somewhat by Taleworld's Mount & Blade videogames, I'm also wondering about different attack types; some bladed weapons could be offered both stabbing and slashing options -  something like a slashing attack might gain something like Rending(2) over a stabbing attack, but also count double armour. Maybe also different hit/parry penalties.
That, again, opens up more possibilities.

I don't know exactly. But I think close combat needs more options - other things like the option for offensive/defensive stances as in what I think were DapperAnarchist's house rules could potentially be built in.
As is, "Attack attack attack" is almost a platitude when it comes to the turn of a character in close combat.

~~~~~

Shooting:
The range table... um. Well - it's a mess. But I don't want to replace it with something that's vague - Inquisitor is too detailed to make range something too coarse (many games have very broad range modifiers); it needs to be reasonably granular. Similarly, I think I prefer look-up tables to mental maths.
Again, this is an area that I think would be better improved, but don't know how to improve.

Automatic fire also needs work.
Semi-auto less so, but things like Semi(6) being largely guaranteed to completely miss at point blank range are  daft, so I think it may need the specifics changed. My favourite options are either the semi-auto penalty scaling with range; or the penalty being reduced and increasing the range penalties for auto fire.

Full-auto is a lot of the time just hitting on the automatic 5% or near it (again, even at point blank range). I'd prefer to see it fit with the semi-auto rules better - being a "the same, but more" matter (with rules for engaging multiple targets - but strictly, I wouldn't say no to that with semi-auto).
As is, there have been three official versions of these rules, and none of them have been very good.

Overall, I should say I'm not hugely a fan of the "one roll with degrees of success" method used for auto fire in Dark Heresy as the method here. It looks tempting as a way of reducing the number of rolls, but the way it's done dramatically increases the likelihood of several hits; I always see that rolling location and damage for a hit takes longer than rolling more hit rolls. (Also, we don't want a huge chance of taking characters out with multiple hits in one!)

However... I do support "one roll with degrees of success" as an option with flame weapons. I've already made a  proposition for this in the Revised Armoury that takes it back to one hit roll per target, modified by range, movement and number of targets. Until something else comes along, I think that's my preference.

~~~~~

Psychic Powers:
While I do think Koval's recent attempts are very much an improvement, I think it's worth throwing in some other alternatives and picking through them (particularly if we do have the option for a complete redo).

I proposed a crude set of ideas some time ago... something closer to a mix of Dark Heresy and how magic worked in 6th/7th edition Fantasy (editions before or after that I don't know what it's like), about rolling power dice to beat a certain threshold. I recognise my early version was too complicated, but I think it can be neatly trimmed back.

So, power dice - then willpower may then enter this to control the power's effect - that is to say, after one has rolled to summon a fireball, it would be Willpower to make it go in the right direction; or after having enough power to forge a link to another mind, it would be an opposed Willpower roll to plant one's suggestion).

This might reintroduce Risky Action like rolling - counting the 1s and 6s on the power dice in order to determine Perils of the Warp. As I said, the risks ramp up (although diminishingly so) with more dice, so it's got a nice scaling effect to it.

~~~~~

Well, that's my thoughts on what would be best fixed, and how it might be possible to fix them.

Feel free to agree or disagree, make your own suggestions for problems or solutions, or whatever really.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2017, 08:23:48 PM by MarcoSkoll »
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Quickdraw McGraw

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2013, 06:01:28 PM »
Reactions from action points is definitely a great idea. It seems naturally appropriate but Reactions are actions done instinctively not premeditated at start.

I propose Reactions should be taken anytime a character sees fit at the cost of existing action points.

Example: Said character takes a shotgun blast to the face... It's unlikely he was expecting to be shot in the face and held back action points to avoid this. More likely used one point his following turn's Action point pool to remedy this with a Reaction.

What about following turns? If a character's turn is already over they still can React but at a cost to their following turn's Action point pool. Thus shortening their action the following turn but combat seems to flow better from one turn to the next.

I'm currently at work, I'm sorry if this comes across a little rushed.
Every time I see a math word problem in the warp it looks like this: 

If I have 10 ice cubes and you have 11 apples. How many pancakes will fit on the roof?

Answer:  Purple because Tyranids don't wear hats.   :P

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4584
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2013, 07:36:35 PM »
Reactions from action points is definitely a great idea. It seems naturally appropriate but Reactions are actions done instinctively not premeditated at start.
"Reactions" is perhaps not a perfect word, but it's as good as I've got.

With regards to your idea, I'm not sure reactions to be something that characters can allocate at any time is as interesting - if it were that way, characters can just charge around willy-nilly and not be penalised for it.
Reactions seem more "right" to me if they're a bit of a gamble - keep one eye out while working on the cogitator in case in case the guards are just about to come around the corner... or hope they're not and put your full concentration into the decryption to try and get it done before they turn up?

If players can allocate actions from next turn (which has a problem in that you can never be sure what a character's speed might be by then) there's no choice to make. Either a brash or a wary character will take whatever reactions whenever they need to.
Letting characters have control of their wariness, paranoia and/or situational awareness may be better suited than than just letting them fix their (or the players') mistakes after the fact.

It could be good if some characters get to allocate extra reactions, but I think that's ground for something like the Lightning Reflexes skill (which might automatically allow a character a free reaction, even if they haven't assigned any - although maybe not be cumulative with any they've otherwise reserved, potentially of a limited number of uses per game or some other such caveat to stop it being an overly powerful skill).
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 07:41:51 PM by MarcoSkoll »
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Dosdamt

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Old Guard
    • The Mind
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2013, 07:44:02 PM »
Does the "effectively auto passing" not negate the meaningful nature of stats? I'm not sure I'm reading that right, but it seems to infer you roll and autopass? I must be reading something wrong here?
It is never too late! - Mentirius

http://thementalmarine.proboards.com/index.cgi <- The Mind, for all your irreverent nonsense needs

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4584
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2013, 07:53:46 PM »
You're going to have to give more context, I'm afraid! I'm not sure what part you're talking about.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Dosdamt

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Old Guard
    • The Mind
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2013, 08:05:32 PM »
General dice rolling:
This is going somewhat against previous convention, but it's a pretty damn clever idea from Infinity that makes it very fast and easy to include opposed rolling within the rules.

How much a roll passes by is the number on the dice (rather than how much below the target number has been rolled); even for the best mental mathematicians, it's far faster to see that a roll of 15 has passed by 15 than to have to subtract from the target number of 57 to get a pass of 42.

The distribution is essentially the same, just flipped - the absence of a 0 result (as 00 on a d100 is typically 100) to give a "just passed" result does mean that passes are increased by a single point, but the convenience strongly outweighs this, I feel.

The above

Issue 1 - So we auto pass everything? Is that the inference?
Issue 2 - Opposed dice rolling on top of dice rolling? Too many rolls and you might as well simply play a maths simulator

Remember, the game is meant to be played with GM - you actually just need the rules to form a framework, anything super crunch in my opinion should be optional.
It is never too late! - Mentirius

http://thementalmarine.proboards.com/index.cgi <- The Mind, for all your irreverent nonsense needs

Offline greenstuff_gav

  • Chief Enginseer
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Greenstuff Monkey
    • Build Your Imagination
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2013, 08:51:12 PM »
while not rulesy or smart enough to offer well-balanced feedback, regarding Actions:

Confrontation 3 offered a Combat system where each miniature generated X number of Combat Dice (1D6 for being alive, 1D6 for each opponent, 1D6 for the Born Killer ability etc)
at the start of Combat the lowest Initiative would allocate these die; Attack or Defense.
Then the highest I character would take one of their attack dice and roll to hit. the defender choosing to use one of their defense dice.

with Inq2.0 could it be something similar? at hte start of turn each player, starting with lowest I allocated their dice into Active or Reactive actions.
When it comes to that characters activation, they allocate actions as per normal, but only upto the # of Active Actions (skills to allow reassignment) and any unused Reactive dice unused at the end of turn are lost / carried over according to skills.
If a player is under attack and wants to reallocate out of sequence, a Ld test is required with more Levels of Success as they have Active dice...

... like i say, just a quick thought :)
i make no apologies, i warned you my ability to roll ones was infectious...

Stuff for Trade / Sale!

Offline Quickdraw McGraw

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2013, 09:51:07 PM »

"Reactions" is perhaps not a perfect word, but it's as good as I've got.

Reactions seem more "right" to me if they're a bit of a gamble - keep one eye out while working on the cogitator in case in case the guards are just about to come around the corner... or hope they're not and put your full concentration into the decryption to try and get it done before they turn up?

If players can allocate actions from next turn (which has a problem in that you can never be sure what a character's speed might be by then) there's no choice to make. Either a brash or a wary character will take whatever reactions whenever they need to.
Letting characters have control of their wariness, paranoia and/or situational awareness may be better suited than than just letting them fix their (or the players') mistakes after the fact.

It could be good if some characters get to allocate extra reactions, but I think that's ground for something like the Lightning Reflexes skill (which might automatically allow a character a free reaction, even if they haven't assigned any - although maybe not be cumulative with any they've otherwise reserved, potentially of a limited number of uses per game or some other such caveat to stop it being an overly powerful skill).


My Bad I misunderstood.  If you want to reward characters for playing "Cautiously" then said Action(s) should take twice as long.  If a crazy cultist comes charging around a corner with knife in hand while your character is cautiously overriding a control panel door then you could do an action (reactive in nature) like shot him.  As long as you are feasibly able to, of course.  If the said cultist doesn't charge around the corner this turn then there is that risk that you lose an action or two.


With regards to your idea, I'm not sure reactions to be something that characters can allocate at any time is as interesting - if it were that way, characters can just charge around willy-nilly and not be penalised for it.

I can see characters abusing this like any other rule but you'd have to use common sense here and apply some regulations.   

But to be frankly honest Dave, the inquisitor rules really need a complete rewrite.  It would save you a lot of headaches trying to adjust already problematic rules.  There is an old saying I think applies..."Never put new wine in an old flask".

Every time I see a math word problem in the warp it looks like this: 

If I have 10 ice cubes and you have 11 apples. How many pancakes will fit on the roof?

Answer:  Purple because Tyranids don't wear hats.   :P

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4584
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2013, 11:44:52 PM »
Issue 1 - So we auto pass everything? Is that the inference?
As suggested, you want to roll as high as possible, but also not over your target number. As a crude analogy, it's like "The Price is right".

Quote
Issue 2 - Opposed dice rolling on top of dice rolling? Too many rolls and you might as well simply play a maths simulator
It's not really more rolls, or more complicated rolls either.

Imagine you make a close combat attack (55% to hit) which your opponent wishes to parry (45% to parry).
You roll 12 to hit - a pass, albeit a moderate one. Their parry now has to both pass and beat your margin of success
Their roll was 27 to parry. They passed and beat your roll - they thus deflect your blade.

This is no more dice rolls than before, but has made a good hit harder to parry with no additional mental maths.
The default percentages for parrying would need a tweak to redress that new "penalty", but a new edition can do that.

with Inq2.0 could it be something similar? at hte start of turn each player, starting with lowest I allocated their dice into Active or Reactive actions.
I do like the idea of forcing the slowest characters to make their decisions first - it makes sense; The fastest characters should get the advantage.
I am a little concerned that such a "turn start" phase might be sluggish, as it effectively asks players to make decisions for several characters at once (which could be bad for much the same reason as having several of a player's characters consecutively in the turn order).

My gut instinct was to have it declared (and discard any reactions left over) at the start of the character's turn. It's got precedent already - the characters that get the advantage of going first sacrifice the advantage of knowing what their opponents are doing .

Still, a thought to throw into the mix!

My Bad I misunderstood.  If you want to reward characters for playing "Cautiously" then said Action(s) should take twice as long.
I think setting aside action dice as (potential*) reactions effectively has the same effect, but with a little more granularity than doubling the number of actions needed for playing cautiously - it slows the character down to some degree, but a more variable degree.

*I should stress, reserved reaction points would not by any means automatically be successful reactions.

Quote
I can see characters abusing this like any other rule but you'd have to use common sense here and apply some regulations.
With no offence intended... I can't quite get my head around quite what it is that appeals to you here. Myself, I like the possibility of characters being caught flat-footed, rather than always having a safety net of being able to borrow reactions from next turn - even the greatest action heroes can be caught off guard.

If you always want characters to be prepared for going around the corner and suddenly hearing "ARBITRATOR LARN CORMIX - DEFENDER OF THE IMPERIUM!"*, then I think it'd be probably just be neater to just hand everyone one default reaction a turn like in Dark Heresy and leave it at that (except perhaps for special abilities).
*For those that do not know: According to Koval's anecdotes from his old DH group, Arbitrator Larn Cormix's very favourite thing to do is introduce himself to heretics (or those he deems to be heretics) at the top of his voice... aaaaand then shoot them point blank in the face with a shotgun. So having Arbitrator Larn Cormix loudly introduce himself to you is generally a good time to duck.

Quote
But to be frankly honest Dave, the inquisitor rules really need a complete rewrite.  It would save you a lot of headaches trying to adjust already problematic rules.  There is an old saying I think applies..."Never put new wine in an old flask".
I fully expect large parts will be heavily redone or ripped out wholesale. However, I really don't know what those will be - it may be other people have completely different ideas about what needs doing; having it "my way" rather than a consensus would just ensure no-one else was interested.

At the moment, I'm assuming most of the people here at present more or less like Inquisitor as is. To throw everything out might have the potential to make a fantastic game in a similar vein to Inquisitor, but I don't know that a total ground-up rebuild would necessarily be "Inquisitor 2". (And might be pretty ugly to port old characters into).
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Quickdraw McGraw

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2013, 03:15:34 AM »
No offense taken Dave.  I hope you don't take offense at what I have to say.  I'm just shooting ideas here, some less productive than others I'm sure.


with Inq2.0 could it be something similar? at hte start of turn each player, starting with lowest I allocated their dice into Active or Reactive actions.
I do like the idea of forcing the slowest characters to make their decisions first - it makes sense; The fastest characters should get the advantage.
I am a little concerned that such a "turn start" phase might be sluggish, as it effectively asks players to make decisions for several characters at once (which could be bad for much the same reason as having several of a player's characters consecutively in the turn order).

My gut instinct was to have it declared (and discard any reactions left over) at the start of the character's turn. It's got precedent already - the characters that get the advantage of going first sacrifice the advantage of knowing what their opponents are doing .

Still, a thought to throw into the mix!


My gaming group and I ran into this a few years back playing Cortex's Serenity (Firefly) RPG.  The slowest went first and the fastest went last.  Sadly Cortex dropped the RPG (right after the series was cut and the Movie hype had ended) the same way GamesWorkshop did with Inquisitor.  Large combats became confusing and short ones took longer than they should have. Simply put the combat system was broke.  Many folks still playing the game posted house rules on the forum for the combat and My group and I adopted one of these.  Combat resumed it's normal order again.  Afterwards we continued to play for several more years and now look back fondly to the game.   :)

My Bad I misunderstood.  If you want to reward characters for playing "Cautiously" then said Action(s) should take twice as long.
I think setting aside action dice as (potential*) reactions effectively has the same effect, but with a little more granularity than doubling the number of actions needed for playing cautiously - it slows the character down to some degree, but a more variable degree.

*I should stress, reserved reaction points would not by any means automatically be successful reactions.

Well, if you think it's best... I'm really not a huge fan of the Action point rolling "thing" to see if your declared actions work before you even try.  Then you have to take Penalties to your dice for those declared actions that succeed.  I call that double-dipping! 

Personally, I could agree on a set number of actions a turn.  It's reasonable to say a turn would last 5-6 seconds, no?  Then it's reasonable to say you could perform 3-4 actions in that turn.  These actions would be successful action points, by the way.  The only Penalty or Bonus would be for the actions taken.  Characters with a high number of action points over 3 would have extra reaction points.  This may seem extreme and I would agree that it needs Ironed out but I never liked the action point system especially when your "Arnold Schwarzenegger" type Inquisitor fails his first 2 or 3 action rolls leaving him standing in the middle of the street (at high noon) with no gun in hand.  Not very Hero movie like. 

I can see characters abusing this like any other rule but you'd have to use common sense here and apply some regulations.
With no offense intended... I can't quite get my head around quite what it is that appeals to you here. Myself, I like the possibility of characters being caught flat-footed, rather than always having a safety net of being able to borrow reactions from next turn - even the greatest action heroes can be caught off guard.

It's not a safety net really. The character is still caught off guard but because he's a Hero (all inquisitors should be considered hero types and the odds should be set against them to add suspense) he can snatch victory from curtain defeat. 

It was after all an idea and i got the impression from your first post you would like to see more "movie magic" from the game than just "walk, slash, shot" style of play.  I wasn't even suggesting players borrow all the actions from their next turn as reactions.  I would like to see in Inquisitor, characters using reactions to duck behind cover when grenades or Auto-Fire is thrown their way much like characters can parry in CC.  If characters reserve a point from their pool to do this once a turn...fine.  But in an average game of Inquisitor with 4-5 human players with each their own Warband it will result in longer games as less actions are being made to complete the Warband's goals.  But if an occasional point is stolen from a players existing or following turn to squeeze the trigger on a readied gun or duck from auto-fire it shouldn't hurt anything...much.  Also characters could survive longer in a game instead of dying like a punk in the first turn.

With this in mind I would love to see some better Auto-fire rules.  They should be devastating up close, unless you pass an Initiative roll to duck out of the way. 


Here is another idea if the all that I have just wrote is utter crap!

Just go with the "Ready" state but at an increased percentage of failure to your roll.  Simple actions at the "Ready" are at a -2% increase per action during your turn while complex actions are at a -5% increase per action during your turn.

By the way these are just some ideas.  I've spend too much time already today thinking about ways to help but if my ideas aren't helping let me know.  I'll pull my hand from it.  I know my suggestions my seem like I'm poking a stick into a hornets nest but I really want to help and I believe we all want to see a more story involved, action-packed Inquisitor game with less dice rolling.   ;D




Every time I see a math word problem in the warp it looks like this: 

If I have 10 ice cubes and you have 11 apples. How many pancakes will fit on the roof?

Answer:  Purple because Tyranids don't wear hats.   :P

Offline greenstuff_gav

  • Chief Enginseer
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Greenstuff Monkey
    • Build Your Imagination
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2013, 07:45:47 AM »
no offense but im offended by the overstatement of lack of offense! ;)
i think we are all throwing ideas here and no-one intends offense :)

Imagine you make a close combat attack (55% to hit) which your opponent wishes to parry (45% to parry).
You roll 12 to hit - a pass, albeit a moderate one. Their parry now has to both pass and beat your margin of success
Their roll was 27 to parry. They passed and beat your roll - they thus deflect your blade.

sorry, could you break this down further for me?  :-[

P1: <55 to hit (roll 12 - pass by 43)
P2: <45 to parry* (roll 27 - pass by 18)

so they passed by less yet their roll was still higher?
* no modifications for WS?

now i've written that, i see which infinity rule you are referencing; and as a personal note, it's the one rule that put me off infinity and lead to 200 worth of miniatures sitting in a box for 2 years (before i sold 2/3 of 'em) as it felt counter-intuitive and an extra "step" of calculation (its a simple comparison, but its another one)

regarding the action-pool phase, was thinking it's a small step (confrontation had Attack die placed at the head of the miniatures card, defense at the bottom or different colour dice) at turn start, but would still allow faster characters to see what others were doing (placing last) and act faster (going first) and allow for more non-combat skills (Reflex: character may reallocate their dice at their activation without a test, Witted: Character may allocate their Action Dice at I 75 (if I is lower) yet activate at normal I ) players with nothing to do in the Maintenance Phase may even start allocating dice / planning their actions during other activations...
i make no apologies, i warned you my ability to roll ones was infectious...

Stuff for Trade / Sale!

Offline Cortez

  • Inquisitor Lord
  • ****
  • Posts: 402
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2013, 11:08:46 AM »
I have to say that I like the current core mechanic for this game; i.e. roll a d100 and score under the relevant stat after any modifiers. So I probably wouldn't be happy to see that changed.

The current action roll system I don't like and never have. I'd much rather have a set number of actions for each character each turn, say three for an average character and four for exceptional ones, with only eldar or other alien species getting as high as five actions.

Risky actions I'd also like to see represented in a different way even if the current action rolls are kept. Not sure how to implement this though, possibly add a d6 roll at the same time as the action with a 1 as a fail?

Reactive actions is an interesting idea, maybe give a character the chance to act out of turn if they pass initiative test, although what actions they can take should be limited e.g. take a snap shot or dodge (i.e. if someone chucks a grenade at them).

Parry rules do need to be changed I feel as at the moment you need several actions usually to make sure you hit the target. The benefits for circling etc. should also be improved to make these more attractive instead of just swinging away with your sword.

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4584
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2013, 01:28:25 PM »
Well, if you think it's best... I'm really not a huge fan of the Action point rolling "thing" to see if your declared actions work before you even try.  Then you have to take Penalties to your dice for those declared actions that succeed.  I call that double-dipping!
It's a tough one. I know more than a few people think it's weird, but I don't know what might be better.

Personally, I quite like it - it's not that different to how Fudge/FATE does dice rolls.

Fudge works by having different skill levels - they have names normally (such as "Great", so you can say things like "I'm great at stealth" rather than "I have Stealth 6"), but we'll use numbers to make it easier to understand.
The GM might set a task as difficulty 5, and you have skill level 3. You then roll four D6 - these have two "plus" sides, two "minus" sides and two blank sides. Each plus is added to your skill level, each minus subtracts from it. If you get enough plus signs (subtracting any minus signs) to add at least +2 to your skill, you pass that roll. If not, you fail.

(In less pretty, but perhaps clearer, speak, your roll in Fudge is effectively equal to *skill level* + 4D3-8)

Issuing every character a set number of actions means that... well, that rush to the last drop pod/get under the closing door/outrun the giant boulder is just down to getting out a tape measure: well - that's 15 yards, I have three actions, I run at 6 yards an action... so I make it.
There's no gamble in saying "well, I aim twice and then shoot", because you know you'll reach that shot. You'll never dilly-dally for too long and miss your window of opportunity.

We've often shown that uncertainty works well for Inquisitor, so I'm not sure I really want to hand characters a fixed number of actions, but it's a bit of a Morton's fork between what people want.

Quote
It was after all an idea and i got the impression from your first post you would like to see more "movie magic" from the game than just "walk, slash, shot" style of play.
Very much so! Still, this is a game where both the heroes and the villains are protagonists, so neither side can benefit from the force of plot armour and the rules do have to leave either the chance of suffering un-heroic or ignominious misfortunes!

Quote
If characters reserve a point from their pool to do this once a turn...fine.  But in an average game of Inquisitor with 4-5 human players with each their own Warband it will result in longer games as less actions are being made to complete the Warband's goals.
... thus my suggestion that Speed values were increased by a point.

This allows characters to act faster at the start of the game (when they've not yet got a want/need to reserve reactions) and hence get everyone into the meat of the game faster, but shouldn't slow them down too much when things kick off and they want to reserve reactions to be properly on their guard.

The other alternative, tying into your thoughts about actions being a bit too random might be to not increase speed values and instead permanently change action rolls to 3+. 3 action dice at 3+ is slightly less likely to only roll one action than than 4 action dice at 4+, even if they both average about* the same number per turn.
*At first glance, two thirds of 3 and half of 4 are the same number, but remember that no successful rolls (which has a different percentage chance in each case) still grants one action, so the mean is not exactly 2 actions in either case.

That would be less random, but still not completely predictable - which might be as happy a median as I can contrive between the mixed desires here.
As another plus side, changing the target number rather increasing than the number of dice will avoid them getting a fluke pass on five sprint actions and doing a Usain Bolt impersonation.

As an aside on sprinting, I have just wondered if an action/reaction system may make it possible to ditch a sprint rate entirely - if a character wants to put their head down and leg it, they have to spend all their Speed as actions rather than reactions (after all, the present rulebook does tell us that sprinting characters can't really pay much attention to their environment - and I can't imagine reactions like snap-shots or dodging making good sense at a full sprint!)

Quote
By the way these are just some ideas.  I've spend too much time already today thinking about ways to help but if my ideas aren't helping let me know.  I'll pull my hand from it. I know my suggestions my seem like I'm poking a stick into a hornets nest but I really want to help and I believe we all want to see a more story involved, action-packed Inquisitor game with less dice rolling.
All suggestions are welcome... as I say, it's not much point simply just going with what I imagine are the right fixes for the game if other people have different ideas. You've definitely got me thinking.

I'm not necessarily sure we necessarily want less dice rolling so much as quicker dice rolling though. Dice rolling is good - we want an element of chance, because how can you triumph against the odds if there are no odds to triumph against?
Speeding things up will probably mean fewer dice rolls (it was certainly what I was going for when trying to rewrite grenades for the Revised Armoury), but it's not strictly a correlation.

P1: <55 to hit (roll 12 - pass by 43)
P2: <45 to parry* (roll 27 - pass by 18)
No... you don't subtract the rolled number from the target number, your margin of success would be the rolled number (as long as you haven't rolled over the target number). So rather than passing by 55-12=43 and 45-27=18, they pass by 12 and 27 respectively.

Ignoring the normal convention of rolling as low as possible below the target number is unusual, but it's very simple and fast.

The distribution is barely changed - if I need a 73, a "roll under & low" system lets me pass by between 0 (73, minus a roll of 73) and 72 (73, minus a roll of 01), but "roll under & high" system lets me pass by 1 to 73 points (rolls of 01 and 73 respectively). It's an extra point of success, but that can be balanced out (it's irrelevant in opposed rolls, as both being a point higher equals out).

It's also quite nice in that it redresses the balance of potentially unfair dice - there's no single ideal roll (unlike the perfect 01 in standard convention), so there's little guilt to be had if you're not sure about the fairness of your dice (as I know my quartz ones cannot be, given they're not "square").

Quote
regarding the action-pool phase...
I like it as an idea - I certainly think it's worth trying both ways to see which works best.

I have to say that I like the current core mechanic for this game; i.e. roll a d100 and score under the relevant stat after any modifiers. So I probably wouldn't be happy to see that changed.
That part specifically isn't really being changed. As proposed, you'd still be trying to score equal or under the relevant stat - the difference would be wanting to roll as high as possible under the stat, rather than as low as possible under the stat.

It is an unusual convention, I fully admit - but if people can bring themselves to tolerate it, it will make calculating the margin of success far faster and open up lots of options.

Quote
Reactive actions is an interesting idea, maybe give a character the chance to act out of turn if they pass initiative test, although what actions they can take should be limited e.g. take a snap shot or dodge (i.e. if someone chucks a grenade at them).
That's largely what's in mind - reactions will be of a fairly limited nature, and will require an Initiative test (probably modified in some way*) in order to be successful.

*Although some special skills might modify this, dependent on the action.

~~~~~

Anyway, lots of good ideas so far... I'll try and see how they boil down.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2013, 06:55:08 PM by MarcoSkoll »
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Quickdraw McGraw

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2013, 05:04:58 PM »
Well, if you think it's best... I'm really not a huge fan of the Action point rolling "thing" to see if your declared actions work before you even try.  Then you have to take Penalties to your dice for those declared actions that succeed.  I call that double-dipping!
It's a tough one. I know more than a few people think it's weird, but I don't know what might be better.

Personally, I quite like it - it's not that different to how Fudge/FATE does dice rolls.

Fudge works by having different skill levels - they have names normally (such as "Great", so you can say things like "I'm great at stealth" rather than "I have Stealth 6"), but we'll use numbers to make it easier to understand.
The GM might set a task as difficulty 5, and you have skill level 3. You then roll four D6 - these have two "plus" sides, two "minus" sides and two blank sides. Each plus is added to your skill level, each minus subtracts from it. If you get enough plus signs (subtracting any minus signs) to add at least +2 to your skill, you pass that roll. If not, you fail.

(In less pretty, but perhaps clearer, speak, your roll in Fudge is effectively equal to *skill level* + 4D3-8)

Issuing every character a set number of actions means that... well, that rush to the last drop pod/get under the closing door/outrun the giant boulder is just down to getting out a tape measure: well - that's 15 yards, I have three actions, I run at 6 yards an action... so I make it.
There's no gamble in saying "well, I aim twice and then shoot", because you know you'll reach that shot. You'll never dilly-dally for too long and miss your window of opportunity.

We've often shown that uncertainty works well for Inquisitor, so I'm not sure I really want to hand characters a fixed number of actions, but it's a bit of a Morton's fork between what people want.

I'm really glad you mentioned FATE.  I GM a FATE group on the weekends.   ;D  I understand how it works and I see what you are saying. It's really the only chance "fate" may have a hand at the Inquisitor game is though the Action roll phase.  But what you may or may not be aware of (and for those that are reading this Topic) is FATE has a Heavy GM influence.  If I set the difficulty at Great (sneaking pass two automated security cameras and my players have a +3 at sneak, I'm putting them at risk of failing.  See the average roll on 4 FATE/Fudge dice is +1.  Characters are then to roll the dice and see what the result is.  If it is a +1 they fail.  But not too fast! They can cash in on there FATE points but only through invoking one of their 5 Aspects.  This will give them a +2 if their reason for invoking it is story enhancing.  I'll say that again...Story Enhancing.  FATE is a fast and loose game.  They can describe how they please, how they got past the Security cameras. Now the success works much like Dark Heresy, they call degrees of success "shifts".  Rolling a tie may get you what you want but the GM adds a twist to the game.  Also the GM at anytime can introduce Situational Complications to make your life more difficult.

Now players are responsible to create Aspects (Personality traits) for their characters that not only can be "Invoked" for bonus's but I (the GM) can "Compel" against them to make the story more exciting. But as a loving sort of GM I would give them at least a FATE point for their pain to cash in later.   ;)

I've always felt that "Inquisitor" is lacking a balance in Character flaws.  These sort of complications can make game play way more interesting.   It also gets the GM more involved than just arbitrating the rules. 

For example:   One of your favorite characters Dave, is Malcolm Reynolds, right?  OK.  Mal has the "Tough As Nails" Trait (Special Ability), but he also has the "Things don't go Smooth" Complication. They balance each other out (point wise).  At anytime (Twice per session) I (the GM) see Mal (played by someone in my group) do something I feel is risky, exciting or heavy involved in the current plot.  I can MAKE him reroll that set of die.  The first time he passed and this time he failed!  I may still give him what he wants, but in the very least I'll  twist the story so... some of Niska's goons show up to collect on that bounty!

So when said character (up above) has to make it to the last drop pod before...  He may have time and the distance covered but that's when the GM steps in to Complicate...err add excitement to his life.

1. Is he running across loose gravel? Make him roll to see if he trips.

2. Does he have the "two left feet" complication? Make him reroll a successful roll when movement actions are involved. 

3. Are those wild dogs on his heels?  Run Forest, Run!   ;D

If characters reserve a point from their pool to do this once a turn...fine.  But in an average game of Inquisitor with 4-5 human players with each their own Warband it will result in longer games as less actions are being made to complete the Warband's goals.
... thus my suggestion that Speed values were increased by a point.

This allows characters to act faster at the start of the game (when they've not yet got a want/need to reserve reactions) and hence get everyone into the meat of the game faster, but shouldn't slow them down too much when things kick off and they want to reserve reactions to be properly on their guard.

The other alternative, tying into your thoughts about actions being a bit too random might be to not increase speed values and instead permanently change action rolls to 3+. 3 action dice at 3+ is slightly less likely to only roll one action than than 4 action dice at 4+, even if they both average about* the same number per turn.
*At first glance, two thirds of 3 and half of 4 are the same number, but remember that no successful rolls (which has a different percentage chance in each case) still grants one action, so the mean is not exactly 2 actions in either case.

That would be less random, but still not completely predictable - which might be as happy a median as I can contrive between the mixed desires here.
As another plus side, changing the target number rather increasing than the number of dice will avoid them getting a fluke pass on five sprint actions and doing a Usain Bolt impersonation.

As an aside on sprinting, I have just wondered if an action/reaction system may make it possible to ditch a sprint rate entirely - if a character wants to put their head down and leg it, they have to spend all their Speed as actions rather than reactions (after all, the present rulebook does tell us that sprinting characters can't really pay much attention to their environment - and I can't imagine reactions like snap-shots or dodging making good sense at a full sprint!)

I'm still thinking about this one...

Every time I see a math word problem in the warp it looks like this: 

If I have 10 ice cubes and you have 11 apples. How many pancakes will fit on the roof?

Answer:  Purple because Tyranids don't wear hats.   :P

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4584
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2013, 06:52:47 PM »
I've always felt that "Inquisitor" is lacking a balance in Character flaws.  These sort of complications can make game play way more interesting.   It also gets the GM more involved than just arbitrating the rules.
That could certainly be very interesting, although perhaps best served as an optional add-on.

Aspects like in FATE can be very nice for a tightly run RPG with relatively few players and one character per player... but with Inquisitor and several characters per player, it would be more work.
And how that might have turned out at something like the recent INQvitational event - about 18 people, many of whom had multiple warbands each of several characters - would be a real struggle for a GM (who doesn't necessarily know who he'll be running the game for much in advance) to pick up all of the various different character threads for a game.

It could also be seen as more of a fairness issue when players are on different sides - bringing up a complication in FATE disadvantages all the players* (seeing as they are normally working together), bringing one up in Inquisitor is more partisan.
*As an example from our Dark Heresy game, Astraea's (or Alyx, as she's still calling herself) vendetta from her noble-born origin might specifically relate to her - however, when it kicks into play, it's generally unfortunate for all of the characters; perhaps because it draws unwanted attention, because she has to deal with it first (and can't help the others as well) or because someone's actually outright attacking the group...

Still, it could really add to the depth for a small close-knit gaming group.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles