The Conclave

The Ordos Majoris - Hobby, Painting and Modelling => Inquisitor Game Discussion => Topic started by: MarcoSkoll on August 02, 2009, 06:26:52 PM

Title: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 02, 2009, 06:26:52 PM
For the purposes of repopulating the forum, the link to my Revised Inquisitor Armoury project:

Last version: Version 5.6.1 (http://www.mediafire.com/file/3p64y6z16w0dbno/Revised+Inquisitor+Armoury+v5-6-1.pdf) (Updated: 16th November 2016)



Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Aidan on August 02, 2009, 10:48:08 PM
Hi Marco, good to see the project back up here. I don't go to warseer (I don't like registering on too many forums) so I've been cut off from this a bit. A friend of mine sent me the new 3rd alpha release though.

I congratulate you on integrating bolt weapons into the list with some interesting new types too, and somewhat regulating the power of bolt weapons so that even stingy GMs like me might condone their use. I will certainly be handing out a few 'uncommon' ones to high-end mooks, in the future.

Revised faulty ammunition looks good. *Begins cackling evily*

With regards to 'amour piercing' standard ammunition, from a purely mechanical perspective I prefer you old rules - ie. rounding DOWN. The benefit was more limited, but then is was not clearly superior to normal ammunition. The big change here comes that AP rounds are as good as normal rounds against armour 2, which is my standard for poorly-equipped mooks. I suppose it's up to the individual GM though, and what kind of armour they give out. Either I'll keep rounding down or I'll use the new rules but just change the maths slightly when it comes to armour 2.

Some of the new ammo types are really crazy out there - (yes, HEIAP, I'm looking at you!) - but i suppose they might have some application. But mostly, these are going to be really abused by destruction-crazed GMs out there. Nice ideas, anyhow.

Finally, the new availability classifications are nice. I might start applying these to everything.

-Aidan.





Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 03, 2009, 12:59:03 AM
I don't go to warseer (I don't like registering on too many forums) so I've been cut off from this a bit.
Sorry about that. Membership of multiple forums isn't everyone's cup of tea, I know.
But that's where the community mostly ended up, so that's where I followed.

Quote
I congratulate you on integrating bolt weapons into the list with some interesting new types too
The new types was something I was a bit hesitant about - I thought they made some sense, but I didn't know how people would react to me nudging around in an area quite strongly occupied by canon. Responses seem more positive than anything else, which is a pleasant enough surprise.

I'd note that ironically, the "Uncommon" bolt weapons are probably fewer in number than the "Rare" ones, because they're mostly custom built or modified. However, they are easier to build and get hold of - as well as costing a great deal less. So "Availability" is probably a better word than "Rarity", but it'll do.

The exact design of these, being custom jobs, is up to you. But I half had this (http://pookieweb.dyndns.org:61129/Groza/bullpups/ASG-16d_410gauge.jpg) (also a custom one-off, as far as I know) in mind for the bolt cycler, but possibly not in a bullpup configuration.

Quote
And somewhat regulating the power of bolt weapons so that even stingy GMs like me might condone their use.
Bear in mind, the Weapon Handling rules are intended to be part of the bolt weapon rein-in. It'll still work without using them, but the rule is there to make the Enc stat mean more.

Quote
Revised faulty ammunition looks good. *Begins cackling evily*
You'll note that I've tied a lot of failures to rolling a 5 on the units dice on the D100 - I intend to move a lot of what I've written for simplicity as "Risky Actions" onto a similar system.

It was somewhat inspired by Robey's Inq2 risky action system, but in the interests of saving on dice throws, I just tied it to the result of a dice that was already being used.

Quote
With regards to 'amour piercing' standard ammunition, from a purely mechanical perspective I prefer you old rules - ie. rounding DOWN.
That's a subject of debate - some people like it that way, some seem to think that it should be upgraded. I did prefer it originally, but people seemed to think that it didn't have the low end performance.

But then again, it wasn't really supposed to have low end performance - it's about trade-offs. I may change it back.

Quote
Some of the new ammo types are really crazy out there.
HEIAP is designed to be crazy out there. That's mostly for GMs who need to be very, very violent to a character, probably some form of Space Marine.
I don't expect it will see much use, and it shouldn't, but it's just something to throw in.

The new varieties are all however real world ammunition types.

Quote
Finally, the new availability classifications are nice. I might start applying these to everything.
Feel free to, that's the intent. It's something like my theories on D&D's alignment system* - basically, the original version was too simplified for my tastes.
*Which I should note, I am still writing up, under the rough title "Character motivations".

Sometimes, simple is too simple. Really, the only level I've really added is "Uncommon" (I won't be using "Unique", that's more for others to use), and it's opened up the system a lot.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Inquisitor Cade on August 05, 2009, 12:33:44 PM
First of all I'm improting the leftover thoughts that I posted on warseer so you can see everyting for your considerations without having to flick back and forth. Then there are some more thoughts I've had since.

Dust King suggested a tracer beacon round
Quote
I'd suggest doing 2d6 damage, if it penetrates armour then the target becomes visible on auspex, if it hits and fails to penetrate armour then there is a 75% chance that it becomes stuck in the armour. If the target is being followed closely (GM's discretion) then they can take a Sg test to notice the tracker. to remove it is two actions and D3 to the injury total (unless it was in armour)

I had quite a few ideas.

Quote
I don't M249's are that heavy, I'd suggest mid-heavy stubbers have Enc 50.

I'd give plasma pistols semi(2) and maybe increase the semi values of the other plasma weapons by one. This would make the most of the malfunction chart, and I see no reason for plasma pistols to be incapable of semi auto fire.

I'd make the Magnum Enc 20. As big as Deagles are they aren't bolt pistols.

I'd make plasma pistol 5 Enc higher than bolt pistols rather than the same.

A few weapons that I think should be represented:

A smaller bolt pistol with a much smaller mag and less enc

An LSW type weapon, a long, heavy barreled assault rifle

I'd make the At-Snc Rifle and carbine Uncm as well as the PDW pistol and the high calibre carbine.

I'd make the bullpup auto shotgun Rld 3.

I'd make the semi auto sniper and possibly the precision sniper rare.

By you definition of rare as military issue and exotic as special military issue I'd concider making bolters exotic.

I'd increase the reload for heavy stubbers to 6 (I assume the are belt fed from a drum)

I'd give heavy bolters a full auto setting

As the rules stand Ap bullets give no advantage against standard (flak AV3) or reinforced (AV4) armour. How often would the sort of person who wouldn't have access to a more restricted round need a bullet that is only of worth against heavy armour?

The machine pistols and micro smg are more or less auto pistols, so I remain convinced that they at least should be common. Regular smg's too if you ask me.

Another idea. The ripper gun is clearly defined in the new guard codex as an almost unbreakable auto combat shotgun. I think you should add this to your list. I'd have thought

basic . J . Single/semi(2/4). -10% . D6+3 (hits D3 locations) . 20 . 8(belt fed). 55 . rare

I'd imagine that they would use a larger size scatter shot round, with maybe range J and D6+3 damage per hit. It wouldn't be suitable in smalller shotguns and conversly wouldn't be able to use other types of ammo.

The light compact stubber is more powerful (and no lighter) than the regular compact stubber. This seems the wrong way around.

The high power stubber is less damaging (on average) that the heavy duty stubber. Is that right?

The rifle carbine is powerful, long ranged and fully automatic. It too should Uncm, particularly if any smg's are Uncm.

I'd give the medium assault rifle full(8) as a middle ground between the light and heavy versions.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 05, 2009, 05:03:11 PM
Actually, I've got almost all of that stuff saved off-line. (http://www.the-conclave.co.uk/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif) (http://www.the-conclave.co.uk/forum/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)

- The two Compact Stubbers are similar in combat effectiveness, so applying "light" to one or the other was somewhat arbitrary. I went for the one that had the lesser magazine size and range band.

- The Hi-Power Stubber is less powerful on average by only a small fraction. Nonetheless, a fair point, it should come in higher.

- I've already pointed out that the rarities were a bit of a bodge job when I did them. It was more to give an idea of the system, rather than being hard and fast rules. Quite a few will be changing, you can assume that.

- I'll take it you meant Full (8) - A reasonable suggestion, without the unintentional emoticon.

Quote
I'd increase the reload for heavy stubbers to 6 (I assume the are belt fed from a drum)
I can tell you're not doing a direct copy. You said 8 the first time. (http://www.the-conclave.co.uk/forum/Smileys/classic/wink.gif)
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Inquisitor Cade on August 06, 2009, 10:02:15 AM
Yeah, I edited my post for context and as a result of your initial feedback. I left out ideas that you had refuted.

e.g. Me: How can drilling shotguns shouldn't have Mn(3), it's outrageous blah blah blah.
You: They have 3 barrels.
Me: Oh right.

When it comes to reloading, I've always thought it could be better. At OTC ammunition pouches are the bane of my existence. Also as we are edging towards making shooting more effective compared to close combat, emphasizing reload times up would not only make it more realistic, but also restore some balance.
My theory is that 1 action should be added to the beginning of reloading, representing getting out the fresh ammunition, the reload time on the weapon profile is used for how long it takes to change mags/powercells/etc over and then one action to put the old magazine away. This last action can be skipped for revolvers and most other manual guns, and also if the character just chucks the spent mag rather than stowing it. You could also have the situation where a sniper is in position and takes out several reloads in one action so he can reload faster, or a soldier taping two mags togetherer in order to quicken his first reload.

Sorry about the emoticon, glad you could read between the shades.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 06, 2009, 08:33:41 PM
Actually, your point on Drilling Shotguns was still important - it reminded me that I needed to actually explain them.

Aside from some explanation, I've changed the name to Dreiling Shotguns. It might not be the modern form of the word, but it is at least the origin (From the German Drei - for three), is somewhat more intuitive and will avoid confusion with forms of military drilling.

~~~~~

As far as reloading, I'm not going to try and rewrite those rules. This is an equipment list, not "Marco Skoll's Inquisitor v1.5"
Okay, I wrote the (recommended) Weapon Handling rules along with a couple of small alterations, but that's as far as I want to go.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Kaled on August 06, 2009, 10:15:50 PM
I've downloaded this, and previous versions, of your revised armoury but I don't think I've ever commented up until now...

The big problem I see is not the actual weapon profiles, which seem fine, but the lack of explanation and fluff.  Calling it a 'Dreiling Shotgun' is fine, but it'd be better if it was a Callington 34 'Dreiling' Shotgun commonly used by the Red Spyders gang on Telios II...  At the minute it's just a list of profiles with no flavour - as such it seems, well, a little pointless.  It's easy enough to make a more powerful revolver, or a more accurate stubber or whatever.  Thus I think it the weapon profiles need to me made more than just different profiles - they need to be brought into the 41st millenium; to give people an idea of what these weapons are, where they're made, who might use them etc.  I'd suggest spending some time on this aspect of things before covering more weapon types - it could make a great article for DM if it were done like a gunsmith's sales pitch or a 'Guns & Ammo' buyers guide.

I really like the different ammo types though, and some of the special rules are great, but again they could do with some more fluff to really make them fit into the 40k universe.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 07, 2009, 01:40:46 AM
I will admit to all charges on that one Kaled. They're not currently really more than rules at the moment.

You're actually predicting me. Eventually, I'll be doing this as a full blown and in-character document in the style of a firearms buyer's guide.
A very early and somewhat incomplete draft of what the current "Special Rules/Effects" section might look like is below:

Quote
Is this firearm right for me?

This is probably the most important question that the buyer or user needs to ask, because a weapon that's wrong for you is of little more use than a paperweight. It is also however, a question that few consider when making a purchase, buying a firearm based on singular traits that appeal, not effectiveness of the whole, and are left with a disadvantage they are unwilling or unable to shoulder.

For this reason, we have provided data tables for each of the firearms we list. Our readers should already be familiar with standard firearms data notation (if not, then refer to pg. 32 of publication 1-84154-077-3).

For convenience, all of these tables have an additional column which contains basic facts about the firearm in question. Due to several weapons possessing similar qualities, the following commonly used definitions and abbreviations are used in this column:

*Insert Table of stuff here*
The eagle eyed may spot the hidden joke/reference in the passage... but the thing is, I want to have the rules down fairly well before I invest the time in making it all in-universe.

Not sure it's necessarily the stuff of a DM article though - it's lengthy, and not exactly within guidelines. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing it released in a vein similar to the sourcebooks though, as a document in its own right, but I doubt it's an article.
That said, I have things I do think might make articles if smartened up a bit - My version of "Alignment", which some might remember a brief post for on the last 'Clave; and possibly something I wrote a few years ago about "One Liners", which gave characters a bonus for accompanying an action with an appropriately witty comment - not really part of my normal more serious tone, but nonetheless entertaining.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Inquisitor Cade on August 07, 2009, 09:33:58 AM
Is the joke to do with sholdering the unwanted gun, or was that an unintended pun?

You could a DM article with about 3 revolvers, 3 stubbers, an SMG and/or machine pistol and handful of the log guns. Then at the bottom of the article something like.

"For the full product list log your cogitators on to Imperial network gamma three at *insert link to Revised Armory*

Remember, The Emperor protects those who protects themselves."

You should have a picture of a model of all, or at least most of the guns in the article though.


I'll take my reloading theory elsewhere. Maybe Pricinctomega will concider it for INQ 2.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 07, 2009, 11:56:01 AM
@ Inquisitor Cade: No, that's not what I was referring to. No intended pun there.

It's the reference to "pg. 32 of publication 1-84154-077-3".
This the numbers weren't just made up off the top of my head, and they do what they say they will. I'll leave you to figure it out.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Simeon Blackstar on August 07, 2009, 01:48:32 PM
Without checking, I'd have guessed that that's the ISBN of the Inquisitor Rule Book, and p32 is where it gives abbreviations. ;)

I'd like to jump in as defence though - I thought half the point of this was to simply give rough weapon profiles analagous to real weapons so people can see what they've got and make appropriate fluff for themselves?

Maybe the project's gone beyond that while the Conclave was down (I wasn't on Warseer either), but otherwise isn't it little better than another load of weapons that no one knows the power of?
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 07, 2009, 03:46:06 PM
And it still will be the point of it. It's a bit hard to explain how I'm going to go about it, but in the end, it will both do that, but have fluff and background to go with it.

In simplified terms, the profile will look at a class of weapons from a general viewpoint, and the text/background will start in the same way, then (where appropriate) talk about a specific example of the class.
A bit like me talking about a type of car (say, superminis) generally, then pulling out the Ford Fiesta (or whatever) as an example of the type.

The background is being written from the viewpoint of making the player think from the character's view. Is this what they would choose and for what reasons?

It's a bit experimental, but I think it has the potential to work, and sate the appetites of most readers. Worst case scenario, I can release it in both bland and flavoured formats, and there'll be a profile summary in both.

~~~~~

Also, right on both points. It's the ISBN and "Weapon profiles" page.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: DapperAnarchist on August 09, 2009, 09:56:42 PM
I like them being just rules, with no specific names - I mean, in an Imperium of a million worlds or so, with the vast majority producing weapons for local use or export, there's going to be exponentially more names for guns then we could come up with - but the functions are kinda limited, as there's only so many ways one can cause injury at a distance. So with a list of the types of weapon, one can be reasonably complete, and then leave the make or marque of gun to the individual gamer (as I did, when I used the original rules for my Xenostalkers)
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 09, 2009, 10:49:38 PM
I like them being just rules, with no specific names.
I don't intend to make it a list where everything on it is is a specific weapon. The rules will still represent a generic weapon, but the text may take a specific model as an example of that generic class. I think the way I'm doing it will probably work out fine.

We'll find out eventually either way.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Inquisitor Cade on August 20, 2009, 12:08:20 PM
I had another thought when looking at Inquistor Aralt. A pistol with a burst function, liked the (I think iy's called) Berreta 93r. This would give a more moderate autopistol option, and fill a gap in what there is so far.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Ynek on August 21, 2009, 05:27:05 PM
I'll admit that I was initially very sceptical about this project, but now that I see the quality of the ideas you've come up with, you've converted me.

However, I have one small question - Are you only intending to cover firearms, or are you intending to have a look at rewriting any of the other armoury sections? [Combat stimms, toxins, close combat weapons, etc.]
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 22, 2009, 12:04:14 AM
@Ynek: Well, that's a major complement.

As for your question, my expertise is only really in the area of firearms. While I would be capable of looking at other areas, I don't think I could do drugs and poisons the justice a biologist could, or CCWs the attention a sword-fighting enthusiast could.

When I set out, I only really intended to do firearms. If when I get to the end of that, people are interested in seeing my take on other things, I may continue. But, as I say, there are probably people more qualified to work on these other things.

@Inquisitor Cade: Suggestion taken on board and implemented.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Ynek on August 22, 2009, 03:35:10 AM
As for your question, my expertise is only really in the area of firearms. While I would be capable of looking at other areas, I don't think I could do drugs and poisons the justice a biologist could, or CCWs the attention a sword-fighting enthusiast could.

I understand what you're saying. From what I've heard you say in various topics, I know that you're a pretty knowledgeable firearms enthusiast and tend to take the issues of ranged weapons pretty seriously. It would only be fair that if anyone does any rules for close combat weapons, toxins or whatever so have that same enthusiasm for the relevant topic.

What you said about a biologist writing rules for toxins has tickled my inspiration bone... And I may well be opening a word document within the next few minutes.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Dust King on August 22, 2009, 04:53:51 AM
Same here, I thought the existing toxins were good but they could use a bit more variety. Personally though I've always had a bit of an issue with the biomancy powers, there really isn't anything that original or interesting there, I've been tinkering with a couple of ideas, could possibly work as toxins.

eg. cytokine storm: difficulty 30: setting off a chain reaction in the targets body their own immune system begins to attack them. At the start of each turn the target takes a toughness test, until they fail a test they add D6 to their injury total and subtract D10 from their toughness. 

Just something I've been playing around with, not sure if I'll ever do anything with it. (I've got heaps of half finished -][- stuff on my computer)
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Ynek on August 22, 2009, 02:50:33 PM
Same here, I thought the existing toxins were good but they could use a bit more variety. Personally though I've always had a bit of an issue with the biomancy powers, there really isn't anything that original or interesting there, I've been tinkering with a couple of ideas, could possibly work as toxins.

eg. cytokine storm: difficulty 30: setting off a chain reaction in the targets body their own immune system begins to attack them. At the start of each turn the target takes a toughness test, until they fail a test they add D6 to their injury total and subtract D10 from their toughness. 

Just something I've been playing around with, not sure if I'll ever do anything with it. (I've got heaps of half finished -][- stuff on my computer)

Those rules are very similar to the X3 toxin that I wrote for my O.A character a while back on the old 'clave.

However, to comment on your cytokine-based toxin, I think that it's worth mentioning that simply activating the immune system would not be enough to cause an autoimmune reaction. The negative selection process in the thymus prohibits this in healthy humans. Also, even in a complete autoimmune disease where every T cell reacts to self-antigens, it takes several months, if not years to kill someone. In addition, I don't think that the toxin would work very well against non-humans, as their immune triggers are unlikely to be the same as our own.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: DapperAnarchist on August 22, 2009, 05:13:47 PM
BUT! It would be a cool explanation - and make at least as much sense as Lasweapons or Meltaguns...
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 22, 2009, 05:20:44 PM
I know that you're a pretty knowledgeable firearms enthusiast and tend to take the issues of ranged weapons pretty seriously.
You could say that. I'm currently working for a contractor who's developing a less-lethal weapon for the US military.

Quote
It would only be fair that if anyone does any rules for close combat weapons, toxins or whatever so have that same enthusiasm for the relevant topic.
It's more from the angle of simply being sensible. Even without taking enthusiasm into account, I don't know those subjects so well, so I can't do them the same kind of justice as I can firearms.

I wouldn't mind seeing someone with experience with blades putting something into the CCWs - "Sword" is a bit generic, and can be used to cover everything from rapiers to claymores!

Quote
What you said about a biologist writing rules for toxins has tickled my inspiration bone... And I may well be opening a word document within the next few minutes.
Sounds good.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Dust King on August 23, 2009, 12:54:57 AM
I originally thought up cytokine storm as a new biomancy power, I've always thought that if a biomancer could regenerate someone then they could also ruin their body's systems, instead they throw lightening at them, I always thought that they needed some attack powers which fit more with manipulating someone's body.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Simeon Blackstar on August 24, 2009, 11:06:28 AM
Same here, I thought the existing toxins were good but they could use a bit more variety. Personally though I've always had a bit of an issue with the biomancy powers, there really isn't anything that original or interesting there, I've been tinkering with a couple of ideas, could possibly work as toxins.

eg. cytokine storm: difficulty 30: setting off a chain reaction in the targets body their own immune system begins to attack them. At the start of each turn the target takes a toughness test, until they fail a test they add D6 to their injury total and subtract D10 from their toughness. 

Just something I've been playing around with, not sure if I'll ever do anything with it. (I've got heaps of half finished -][- stuff on my computer)

Those rules are very similar to the X3 toxin that I wrote for my O.A character a while back on the old 'clave.

However, to comment on your cytokine-based toxin, I think that it's worth mentioning that simply activating the immune system would not be enough to cause an autoimmune reaction. The negative selection process in the thymus prohibits this in healthy humans. Also, even in a complete autoimmune disease where every T cell reacts to self-antigens, it takes several months, if not years to kill someone. In addition, I don't think that the toxin would work very well against non-humans, as their immune triggers are unlikely to be the same as our own.

It might not trigger an auto-immune reaction, which would take quite a while to affect people, but the biomancy power and/or toxin could certainly initiate a massive immune response, leading to widespread inflammation, shock/anaphylaxis, coughing, sneezing, choking etc..  Think the reaction you get when someone with allergies gets stung by a wasp, holds a cat, gets dust blown in their face etc., but amplified.  Could be a nice idea to add to the armoury!  :)
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: BeardMonk on August 24, 2009, 01:14:04 PM
Revising the CC weapons.  Now theres a project....
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Kaled on August 24, 2009, 05:08:18 PM
Personally, I've always thought Charax & Helst's Custom Close Combat Weapon rules to be very good as you can use them to represent all sorts of different types of sword etc.

http://www.freewebs.com/closecombatweapons/index.htm
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Daxam on August 28, 2009, 09:40:07 AM
Just had a quick flick over the file. Really well done, it's brilliant. Love the new ammunition types and the equippable stuff for weapons. It seems a little light on the Battle Rifles though. But other than that, I can't say anything against it.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 28, 2009, 05:57:31 PM
It seems a little light on the Battle Rifles though.
It was always going to be. Most things that could be described as battle rifles are similar enough in most respects that trying to differentiate between them on a somewhat abstract statline would result in profiles that didn't differ enough to be worth doing.

That said, I am making a minor adjustment to one of the rifles in the next update. The Bolt Action rifle is dropping a point of damage, but also coming down slightly on encumbrance in order to try and put a little more distance between the two.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Inquisitor Cade on August 29, 2009, 02:37:18 PM
But then it will be almost exactly the same as the hunting rifle. I'd leave it and if people want a light bolt action rifle then the hunting rifle is already there.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 29, 2009, 04:04:09 PM
You're assuming the hunting rifle wasn't being adjusted as well. But either way, I'll leave it.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Chaospling on September 03, 2009, 09:40:08 PM
Hmm I've downloaded from the folders before but this link doesn't work proper for me.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 03, 2009, 10:04:02 PM
I've just checked the link on both IE and Firefox - I don't get any problems with either.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Chaospling on September 03, 2009, 10:49:21 PM
Well the actual link work but the download doesn't. The other downloads work fine.

There - it worked. It just had to load for about 5 minutes.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 04, 2009, 01:46:11 AM
Odd. I did check it could be downloaded when I looked earlier, so that's a bit strange.

~~~~~

I have to apologise, I did plan to have the next update out at the start of the month, but time ran short on me, and I found a whole lot more that I wanted to get sorted, so I'm still working on it...
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 26, 2009, 12:56:12 AM
Alright, screw it. The lasweapon rules are still suffering issues, so I'm throwing out an update for what is working (with apologies for the lack of lasguns).

http://www.mediafire.com/?nnwodznm4mu

Same caveats as normal - i.e. you may find there are loose ends within the document.

Rough update log:
- Adjusted recoil rules after some thought (not to mention some rather unpleasant real-life experimentation where I was test firing some of the higher recoil "creations" I have around).
- Few edits on hazardous actions.
- Basic "Bolt-on" upgrades (Bipods, Scopes & Auxiliary weapons for now).
- Flamers, Grenade Launchers, "Electromagnetic" and (some) primitive weapons added.
- Plasma weapons edited (new fire mode, revised failure table).
- A few new ammunition types.
- A handful of new weapons in old categories.
- Shotgun calibres.
- Minor assorted changes.

Amongst things still to do:
- Lasweapons.
- Needle weapons.
- Web weapons.
- Graviton gun.
- Blackpowder weapons.
- Alien weapons.

The trouble at the moment is with:
- The Lasweapons, which I want to be a challenger for the other weapons, but with some advantages and some disadvantages, rather than simply being a near carbon copy of the solid shot weapons.
- The Graviton gun, which I want to be a more versatile, but less game breaking weapon - in other words, it can have a greater range of ways it can influence the game, but less of an impact. (As opposed, obviously, to almost completely disabling a character for several turns - if not the entire game - which is not only possible, but probable with the current rules)

Feedback would be welcomed on the Plasma weapon update and the Neural shredder.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: N01H3r3 on September 26, 2009, 11:42:48 AM
- The Lasweapons, which I want to be a challenger for the other weapons, but with some advantages and some disadvantages, rather than simply being a near carbon copy of the solid shot weapons.
Background-wise, the primary advantages of the Lasgun over the Autogun is reliability and cost (the latter mainly on the large scale - long-term campaigns are far cheaper to supply when you're using rechargeable lasgun power packs rather than a finite supply of bullets, and it takes up less space in cargo holds as well). Neither of those translate very well to Inquisitor.

Beyond that, would be the relative lack of recoil - while Lasguns are described as being subject to recoil-like effects (which I've seen described as the effect of the air immediately around the barrel being rapidly heated when the weapon discharges), it's unlikely to be as significant as that of solid projectile weapons. Lasguns, however, tend to be represented as having a lower rate of fire than autoguns.

The other matter would be the potential for high powered weapons without significant increases in mass - afterall, a lasgun built to accomodate a larger discharge of energy per shot (what is repeatedly referred to in the background as a Megathule rating, with common lasguns being 18 or 19 megathule weapons, the Lucius-pattern used by Krieg forces being 21 megathules, and hellguns being 28 megathules) wouldn't inherently be that much bigger or bulkier than any other lasgun. High-powered projectile weapons get bigger as they get more powerful, as you're demonstrably aware, but las-weapons don't have this requirement because their damage is a factor of the energy they discharge rather than the mass or velocity of a projectile.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Inquisitor Cade on September 28, 2009, 04:55:15 PM
My thoughts on lasguns, that are mostly based on a very very old conclave article by N01H3r3 (retroactively speak of the devil) has the idea that lasguns have different default power settings, the article refured to the megathule value of the weapon.  The lowest was 18 megathules that does 2D6 damage and has 60 shots in a regular powerpack. 19 megathules does 2D6+1 with 50 shots, 21 does 2D6+2 with 40 shots and 24 does 3D6 with 25 shots. Any lasweapon can do +3 damage for double ammo usage. Beyond this you get hell guns.

I give most lasguns the same semi values as regular semi automatic weapons (2 in the rulebook, 2/3 in your revised rules) and most a full value of 6, though higher megathule versions loose this. Some lasguns get a second even higher setting of +5 damage for quadruple ammo use.

Lasguns should have better range values than assaut rifles, or maybe +10 accuracy.

Lasguns never cause bleeding but count as doing half again as much damage for system shock.

I've yet to look at your update for everything else but I will give feedback when I do; looking forward to it!
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Lorddarigarn on September 28, 2009, 05:07:02 PM
If it's still wanted, I have that article saved to my laptop.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 28, 2009, 05:47:57 PM
Background-wise, the primary advantages of the Lasgun over the Autogun is reliability and cost. Neither of those translate very well to Inquisitor.
Regrettably, they don't. While I've got some rules that try to represent those elements, they don't represent a "primary advantage" in rules terms.

My thoughts on lasguns, that are mostly based on a very very old conclave article by N01H3r3.
Yes, I've been reading over that very article. (Thanks to Lorddarigarn for the offer anyway.)

I've taken in quite a lot of it already, but as I've explained (somewhere, I'm sure), what I'm doing is creating lasweapons as "parts lists", which the player then picks and chooses from. Each part has some of the weapon profile stats (or other rules), and those go together to create the whole weapon.

There are literally thousands of unique lasweapons to be built - although there will be "example profiles" (using specific parts from the lists) for the common lasguns.
Because of the number of different options, recommended practise will be to write out a lasgun's profile in full after parts are selected.

Quote
Lasguns should have better range values than assault rifles, or maybe +10 accuracy.
I've already got the assault rifles given some pretty impressive range values, and I don't really want to be too generous with accuracy bonuses.

What I'm currently throwing around as an idea is a new "Low recoil" rule, which would be a small Acc bonus when using Semi-auto or Full-auto (but not on Single), because the lower recoil makes said weapons easier to keep on target. Something of an inverse to the new "Considerable Recoil" rule - but where Considerable recoil is an extra -5% per shot (if below S70, at least), Low recoil would be a fixed bonus of perhaps 5% or 10%.

Of course, the majority of lasweapons would get to benefit from the "Low Recoil" rule - and hopefully in the process, draw a few more players into using them.

Quote
Lasguns never cause bleeding but count as doing half again as much damage for system shock.
I've already covered the bleeding aspect. I figured it was too much of a complication to have to keep track of which weapons caused which wounds*, so there's a note that while the wounds they cause don't actually bleed, the cauterisation causes circulation loss with the same in-game rules as bleeding.

*With the exception of the very rare gauss flayer, where there's not really an easy workaround.

Even if I decided to complicate things thus, I don't think a bonus that large to system shock would be particularly great in game (you'd see vast numbers of system shock tests), and I'm not even entirely sure why such a thing would be justified.

~~~~~

Anyway, the opportunity to talk some of these things over has presented me with a few ideas that I'll try and make use of. With any luck, I'll have most of this done and dusted for the IGT in December.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Inquisitor Cade on September 28, 2009, 08:39:36 PM
Feedback as I go through.

Why should there be a limit on the auxilliary add ons a weapon can take. Surely if the model has a UGL and a bayonet there isn't a problem with it. I'd suggest wysiwyg should be enough enforcement of scensibility without needing a restricting rule.

I'd up the rareity of all gunsights by a level. It is not common to see them outside the military nowadays (referance the heat shootout) and looking at 40k and Inquisitor models it isn't in the 41st millenium either. Iron sights should be the common sights and anything better should be a step up from there.
I don't think the +1 rareity for each additional function is a sound method though. I'm sure there are enough special issue, multipurpose sights that are capable of thermal vision, range finging and providing crosshairs or something that they shouldn't be legendary. I'd say it is the rareity of the most rare function, but the combined weight of all it's functions.
I'd suggest that there is space on that list for a high magnification scope in that list, though I don't know how to portray it, maybe +10 if aimed, -10 if not, though this would make sniper rifles OTT concidering the acc bonuses they already get. I'd drop most, if not all the acc bonuses to snipers and provide scopes that give big bonuses when aining and penalties when not.

Jam prone seems almost irrelevant next to damaged magazine. I'd apply the current rules for jame prone to any gun with relevant moving parts and widen the range that will cause a jam to 95+ for particularly unreliable weapons. I don't think 1 jam in 100 shots is poor performance for even a well maintained modern weapon. I had a pistol jam when the slide closed on the ejecting cartridge before it was clear for example, which was not a symptom of an remarkably jam prone gun, but just unlucky.

I'd keep the heavy smg and the light smg as rare just so there is some veriation and to reflect their more specialist nature.

The rifle carbine too should be rare as it is just like an assault rifle but with a tad less range and a tad less weight. I'd say that the rifle carbine profile is appropriate for the M4, if the assault rifle is the M16.

I'd make sniper rifles a bit less available, given that hunting rifles are delt with seperately. Other than the new two I think they would all benefit from a step up. I'd also only make most of them not snc, as most snipers aren't A player can always choose a snc version of one, but I don't think suggesting that all snipers out there are by default.

The bolt shotgun shell might suffer from the poor quality charge rule.

Why are only the bigger, and thus less affected by recoil, bolt weapons affected by the CR rule. I thought that the recoil of bolters was kept managable by the rocket in the shell meaning the firing charge didn't need to be that big. I'd have said that only ones that weight less than 25 or 30 suffer it whereas you have said the opposite, why is that?

The Aux plasma and melta weapons seem anomolously fast to reload.

I always thought that the ideal way of representing the melta would be something akin to the sustained setting on a plasma gun. I'm not sure if plasma weapons warrent such a fireing option, I've never heard of anything like it in a plasma gun before.

Shouldn't the pump action GL be Mn rather than Sm, and I don't know anout the drum mag GL but I presume they lack gas parts and work on the same Mn principles as revolvers.


Keep up the good work, can't wait for lasguns.

Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 28, 2009, 11:18:31 PM
- Auxiliary limit: You're right, it should be on a WYSIWYG basis.

- Gunsights: I could have my hands on any of the modern equivalents of the Common or Uncommon gun sights (other than the Motion Predictor, which hasn't a modern equivalent) by completely legal UK commercial channels within a few days, provided I put down some serious money. If that doesn't qualify them for those rarities, I don't know what would.

- Combined Scope Rarity: It's a bit of a rough method. However, I'm trying to dissuade people from just adding as many as they like. Your solution could work though, with increasing weight rather than increasing rarity. Two Rare or higher functions would then add +20 weight, which would be a bit of a dissuader.

- High Magnification scope: Possibly. I was working on it, but I couldn't come up with rules that had the right feel.

- Jams: Possibly a bit cross purpose with the Jam-Prone vs. Damaged Mag, you're right. One is supposed to be worse than the other of course, but I'll look back at it. However, I am still trying to shift away from Risky Actions, which don't really work brilliantly for shooting.

And yes, I have been considering giving all (non-manual) solid shot weapons the Jam-Prone rule on rolls of 00. I don't think it would be unreasonable, and perhaps it would coax a few more people into using lasweapons.

- SMG rarity: First you tell me they should be more common. Now you're telling me the reverse... You don't make my job easy, do you? That said, I wanted to keep some of them Rare, so I'll indulge you.

- Rifle Carbine: Oops, forgot the Light Assault rifle was Dam 3D6 when I changed the Carbine. Well, I suppose it can work as the M4.

- Sniper rifle rarity: The rifles aren't too hard to get hold of, at least in the USA. They might not be easy to get your hands on, but Uncommon seems appropriate for most. Rare works fine for the others. I don't want to put weapons into a category that was lacking, then discourage people from them with excessive rarities.

- Sniper rifle Silencing: Snc only means it can be fitted with a silencer. Not that it automatically has one. It's At-Snc that means that it's naturally fitted with one.

- Bolt shotgun shell: Yes, should have the possibility for Poor Quality charge. Indeed, it does, but by a somewhat indirect route (given that bolt rounds can be PQC).

- Bolter recoil: Partly canon. Partly justified in that the bolt pistols only have very short barrels, and thus low muzzle velocities, which don't equate to as much recoil, in spite of the lesser firearm weight.
Then again... I'm tempted to simply apply it across the board to try and stop them being too popular (I should note that where the guns are already Single only, I haven't given CR to them, because there's no rules effect from it.)

- Aux Melta & Plasma reload times: An error for the Melta. Not for the Plasma gun, which only uses one gas flask, as opposed to the multiples on the other models. However, I did cock up its Shot count.

- Sustained Plasma Fire: I may shift the mode solely onto a "Plasma Flamer", but it's an idea I'd like to keep.

- Grenade Launchers: Both valid points, an error on my part. The section was a late addition on my part, and I didn't really do a full check of it.

~~~~~

Anyway, thanks, that should help me sort out a few points... and indeed:

Minor Update: http://www.mediafire.com/?mddbgzmmody

That's the 4.1 release that fixes a couple of the mistakes you mention, and takes on board a couple of the ideas. (The others are going to need more time to consider)
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Inquisitor Cade on September 29, 2009, 12:12:00 AM
Quote
SMG rarity: First you tell me they should be more common. Now you're telling me the reverse... You don't make my job easy, do you? That said, I wanted to keep some of them Rare, so I'll indulge you.

What I said was 'some' of the smg's should be more common. I much prefer this to how it was, but having the extreme smgs as a step up would offer a bit of veriety. While this would be straying away from modern reality, I think a more colourful armoury is more important.

Quote
Gunsights: I could have my hands on any of the modern equivalents of the Common or Uncommon gun sights (other than the Motion Predictor, which hasn't a modern equivalent) by completely legal UK commercial channels within a few days, provided I put down some serious money. If that doesn't qualify them for those rarities, I don't know what would.

Ahh, but your average 40k civilian or cultist doesn't have the internet, or indeed 'some serious money' spare. The typical weapon used by most of the worlds terrorists or rebel groups is the AK, and they tend to use the iron sights on it. In 40k the guard and even space marines ussually rely on iron sights. While I wouldn't contest that and agent of the Inquisition, or mercenary with a bit of influence could get a gunsight, I fear that labeling them common will mean that anyone with a gun beyond a token stubber will feel justified with a gunsight. Let me put it this way, would you think nothing odd about quovandius having a lasersight for his shotgun and/or revolver. I know I'd take issue if a player tooled his mutie up with optic sights and laser sights when they are not even military issue.

Quote
Sniper rifle Silencing: Snc only means it can be fitted with a silencer. Not that it automatically has one. It's At-Snc that means that it's naturally fitted with one.

Take the PSG-1. Unless I am very much mistaken it does not have threading for a silencer, at least not normally. I don't thing sniper rifles should be silencable at all by default. While I'm sure there are rifles that can be Snc and I know of at least one Atsnc, I think they are in the minority and worry that is a sniper is snc the player will be too hasty to produce a silencer for it, and suddenly not only will every other warband have a sniper character but they will be able to pull out their silenced druganov for silent takedowns.

Actually I recon Snc shouldn't be shown on weapon profiles. Although the weapons are based on real word guns, they are trying to provide a 40k armory. I propose that any weapon should be Silencable, other than exceptions, like most revolvers, that are pointed out on a case to case basis. Just because there is no modern deasert eagles that can take a silencer (to my knowledge) it doesn't mean an Inquisitor can't weild a silenced magnum stubber. Similarly why shouldn't a SMG be able to fit a drum mag?
But I digress. I think that really all(within reason) guns should be labled snc or none should. Players should be able to choose their gun as treaded for a silencer or even with an automatic silencer.

Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: N01H3r3 on September 29, 2009, 12:22:47 AM
even space marines ussually rely on iron sights
They don't, actually. What appear to be Iron Sights on most Astartes bolters are, in fact, the mountings for autosense targeting sensors, linked directly through data transfer nodes in the wielder's gauntlets (the same ones that allow Astartes weapons to be gene-coded when they never actually touch the warrior's flesh) into the extensive autosense systems present within the warrior's armour which feed vast amounts of sensory data from the armour's sensors directly into the wearer's central nervous system through the same Black Carapace connections that allow him to control the armour.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 29, 2009, 01:02:19 AM
Ahh, but your average 40k civilian or cultist doesn't have the internet, or indeed 'some serious money' spare.
Which would be why only the cheap/simple Crosshair and laser sights are Common. Everything else is at least Uncommon "which could probably be found by the public, but which are restricted, expensive or custom".

Sights are nearly invariably easier to get hold of than firearms. They're seldom restricted, usually cheaper (although you can spend thousands if you wish), and little effort to fit/maintain.

Perhaps the fact that I own more scopes than firearms may be affecting my views on the matter, but

Quote
Let me put it this way, would you think nothing odd about quovandius having a lasersight for his shotgun and/or revolver.
That's a background issue, not an equipment issue.

Mutants are much more limited on the amount and quality of their equipment. The issue with that is they've gone to the trouble of getting hold of a sight, rather than investing their resources in another gun, more ammo, or some armour.
Of course, if the player has a good reason for why said mutant is carrying a laser sight instead of some other item, then they are fully entitled to it.

Quote
Players should be able to choose their gun as treated as having a silencer or even with an automatic silencer.
And indeed, they can. Bear in mind, the RIA is simply "recommendations" - if a player wants to come along and adjust what I've done for their own purposes, I can't/won't stop them.

In that sense, the RIA is no less flexible than the LRB armoury. The difference is that the RIA is designed so that the player has to do LESS adjustment, and can work with an "off the shelf" profile without the need to brew up their own rules.
If you think something is wrong, and you don't like it, you're free to tweak it to your own spec. (But on that note, the SMG profile should have drum mag on it, my mistake.)

The RIA is only loosely based on real weapons. The profiles are not perfect analogues, and they enjoy a little bit of flexibility. Yes, the real-life PSG doesn't have a silencer attachment - but it's not infeasible that a rough 40k equivalent to it could have such mounting attachments, or that such a thing could be custom modified.

The RIA therefore covers "probable" weapons. I don't even pretend that it could ever be an exhaustive list that could cover every single weapon produced by millions of different worlds.

@N01H3r3: In Inquisitor Cade's defence, I should note that the 3rd edition rulebook does mark it as "Backup kick sight".
I imagine, that with the somewhat considerable redundancies already present in Space Marines (extra hearts, lungs, livers and stomachs to name just some biological ones), that they wouldn't skip on the few Thrones needed to actually set up the Marines' weapons with a backup ironsight.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: precinctomega on September 29, 2009, 11:56:46 AM
For info - usual caveats - I decided in INQ2 to make the advantages of the lasgun pretty distinct over the autogun.

Lasweapons do fractionally more damage (to represent that even a near-miss with a lasgun can do damage that an autogun can't) and are Reliable (do not jam).  However, they have a lower viability than autoguns, because whilst lasguns can be easily manufactured where facilities exist, they cannot be built outside specialist manufactora, whereas an autogun can be manufactured by a competent blacksmith with the right tools and enough patience.

R.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Inquisitor Cade on September 29, 2009, 04:08:07 PM
Quote
Sights are nearly invariably easier to get hold of than firearms. They're seldom restricted, usually cheaper

How easy would it be for you to get a laser sight and an ACOG without the internet. I doubt it would be any easier than that for an imperial citizen to get one. Marco Skoll's father was a gunsmith right? What did he sell? I pressume he had pistols, revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns and then a few autoguns, SMG's, and snipers. I imagine that his shop would be the sort of place that a citizen would be able to get weapons, so he might have some gunsights too, but I'd be surprised if he sold gunsights at the rate of revolver etc. I'd have thought that sales of gunsights would be no more that sales of the uncommon weapons.
Obviously in hives etc. gunsights would be more available, but then so would uncommon and rare kit.
You say they aren't restricted, but I've seen no evidence that autoguns or smg's would suffer restrictions.

Quote
but it's not infeasible that a rough 40k equivalent to it could have such mounting attachments, or that such a thing could be custom modified.

Here is where I perceive an inconsistancy. You are labeling snipers Snc if it is reasonable that a snc version might exist in 40k, but you have been much less liberal in your application of Snc labels with other classes of guns. The argument you have used to defend giving snipers Snc would apply to all semi-auto pistol, all SMG's all carbines, all rifles and even the AMR's. Replace the term 'such mounting attachments' with 'an integral silencer' or a 'drum magazine' and your argument necessitates that all these weapons also have At-snc and DM versions.

In fact I agree with your argument and think it appropriate to bite these bullets. I recon however, that the best way to do this would be to say at the begining that any weapon may be Snc or At-snc or DM except for revolvers, with notes to mark out the few exceptions (the one At-snc revolver and no DM for weapons with a shot value of 1 for example).
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 29, 2009, 07:47:53 PM
How easy would it be for you to get a laser sight and an ACOG without the internet.
I know of two local registered firearms dealers within 5 miles of here - there may well be others as well.
Head over to any of them, and if they've got it in stock, I could have it then, no questions asked. If not, a few minutes in their catalogues, place an order, and I'd have whatever I wanted within a week.

You're getting a bit hung up on "without the internet". Even without the interweb, simple sights are still no more trouble to get hold of than firearms, and frequently less trouble.

Quote
Marco Skoll's father was a gunsmith right? What did he sell? I pressume he had pistols, revolvers, hunting rifles, shotguns and then a few autoguns, SMG's, and snipers.
Akseli Skoll was a gunsmith, but was mostly catering for hunting and defence against wild animals. So mostly, he handled stubbers, revolvers, shotguns, hunting and battle rifle equivalents - some of it factory models, some of it modified, or even completely custom built... but next to nothing full-auto.

Sniper rifles - sort of, but not by name. The quality of the hunting rifle Marco still owns is represented by the Sniper Rifle profile. Still, it is expressly one of the finest examples Akseli ever made, Marco's 12th birthday present*.

*Giving young children firearms was common in Mapian culture - they thought little of it. Given that there were plentiful numbers of animal predators that simply saw humans as a food source, control of or defence against these animals was an important part of life, learnt early on. Thus, good gunsmiths were respected people who seldom found themselves without work, and passing on the skills was almost a tradition.

Quote
I imagine that his shop would be the sort of place that a citizen would be able to get weapons, so he might have some gunsights too, but I'd be surprised if he sold gunsights at the rate of revolver etc. I'd have thought that sales of gunsights would be no more that sales of the uncommon weapons.
No, he didn't necessarily sell them at the same rate, but that would be because people weren't necessarily buying them, not because he wasn't stocking them.

The rarity system is a measure of the effort/connections/money needed to get something, not something that tells you the quantity purchased/number in use, or "power level".

Quote
You are labeling snipers Snc if it is reasonable that a snc version might exist in 40k, but you have been much less liberal in your application of Snc labels with other classes of guns.
Not giving most weapons that were high damage and/or high rate of fire was deliberate choice - yes, many of the things I haven't given Snc to can be silenced in real life, but an AMR with a silencer would be somewhat unfair in game terms.

It's really a case of "reasonable" and "feasible". Still, of course, like I say, the RIA can be adapted to the player's means. If it really bugs you, do it your way.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Inquisitor Cade on September 30, 2009, 01:28:25 AM
I'll let the gunsight issue drop as you obviously know more about it than me (status quo joke). I worry that this will mean that most guns will now come with a laser sight as standard, but I suppose that is the GM's problem to keep an eye on.

I really don't think that it is any more unreasonable to have a silenced hi powerd stubber or  battle rifle than to have a silenced sniper, though maybe the AMR was a bit over the top.
But I've argued my opinion and you can concider it all you need. If you dissagree then I'll shut up now.

Ever a man of my word, I would like to suggest a section explaining silencer a bit. I know that I used to believe that that any gun that could be silenced could fit a silencer, and that any silencer would fit onto any gun within reason. It might be helpful to players and GM's to explain how they work in this respect, now that they are represented in the rules.
E.g. could I take a silencer off a PPK and put it on a USP?
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 30, 2009, 03:27:26 PM
I worry that this will mean that most guns will now come with a laser sight as standard, but I suppose that is the GM's problem to keep an eye on.
Bear in mind, there are downsides to laser sights. The rules say you can't choose not to use a sight if aiming, and the fact that you're at +10% to be spotted when aiming does make it harder to sneak around. The bonuses to dodge and deflect shot may be more Hollywood than reality (as Inquisitor is meant to be somewhat "movie action scene"), but it's another reason why you might be less willing to use one.

That said, there is some justification for waiving that for laser sights.
I may swap it to an "1 action on/off" thing. When on, you're always at +10% to be seen and confer +10% bonus to Dodging/Deflecting, but gain +10% to the chances of placed shots (possibly even for snap shots).

Yeah, I think I like that.

The "Crosshair sight" as I've got it is identical to the "Telescopic sight" in the Recongregator sourcebook - same rules, same rarity.
That said, I'm considering some tweaks. Giving those rules to something that's nominally a "reflex sight" (with limits on how it can be combined), then doing a Telescopic sight as a bigger Acc bonus, but with a penalty for if your target is too close.

Quote
It might be helpful to players and GM's to explain how they work in this respect, now that they are represented in the rules. E.g. could I take a silencer off a PPK and put it on a USP?
In the real world, no. Aside from thread compatibility issues, The Walther PPK presented on the list is .32 ACP (7.65mm), compared to the USP (which would need to be the threaded Tactical model), which is listed under both 9mm and .357 SIG (still, near as dammit, 9mm calibre). Try to put a 7.65mm suppressor on a 9mm, and what you'll likely get is a wrecked suppressor.

The temptation is to say next to no compatibility, as that's generally the case in real life. Different thread diameters, pitches, or even thread directions.

However, there is a related point I'm already working on, the issue of which ammunition can be swapped between which weapons. While there's a number  of 9x19mm, 5.56mm & 7.62 NATO, 45 ACP and 12 gauge weapons on the list - for which ammunition which easily could be swapped (although magazines wouldn't necessarily be compatible) - there's also a number of unique calibres.

I'll add it onto the "to-do list" while I'm sorting out the guidelines on ammunition interchangeability.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: precinctomega on September 30, 2009, 03:38:39 PM
Another contribution from INQ2:

INQ2 introduces the rather spongy concept of "viability" for equipment.  This is a useful combination not only of how easy an item might be to find, but also whether the searcher will be able to afford it, understand how to use it or be able to appropriately maintain it.

Gunsights are an upgrade to ranged weapons that increase their viability.  So putting an optic sight on a lasgun increases its viability from 3 to 4.  Characters seeking equipment must consult a table and roll an appropriate die with an appropriate modifier to see if a given item is available.

R.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 30, 2009, 04:20:15 PM
I'd personally look at acquiring the gunsight and the firearm separately - seldom are gunsights a completely integral part of a weapon.

If you don't mind my asking... Inq 2 semi and Inq 2 stoppages.

Semi is done on one roll for all shots. Stoppages are done on missed doubles (for most weapons).
How do the two work together? Does it have to be a total miss and get a double (which makes stoppages erroneously less likely per shot), or is any double where at least one shot has missed (in which case, when is the stoppage considered to have happened)?
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: precinctomega on October 01, 2009, 08:58:15 PM
For a normal weapon, it has to be a total miss for a stoppage.  Imagine that the stoppage occurred after the last salvo or as a result of an impact or mishandling.

For Unreliable weapons, a stoppage occurs on any roll of a double.

In the current draft, I haven't explicitly spelled it out but you would get a number of hits equal to the result, but then a stoppage.

A stoppage represents exactly that: a stoppage.  It doesn't represent a serious malfunction, which is covered by another weapon property (malfunctioning).

R.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Simeon Blackstar on October 01, 2009, 10:04:34 PM
Does that mean that if you shoot targets which are further away, or without aiming, your gun becomes more likely to jam..?
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: N01H3r3 on October 01, 2009, 10:12:59 PM
For a normal weapon, it has to be a total miss for a stoppage.  Imagine that the stoppage occurred after the last salvo or as a result of an impact or mishandling.

For Unreliable weapons, a stoppage occurs on any roll of a double.

In the current draft, I haven't explicitly spelled it out but you would get a number of hits equal to the result, but then a stoppage.

A stoppage represents exactly that: a stoppage.  It doesn't represent a serious malfunction, which is covered by another weapon property (malfunctioning).

R.
It strikes me that there's a lot of room for additional granularity there, as a means of distinguishing between weapons, demonstrating the benefits of reliable, well-made and/or well-maintained weapons.

Give a weapon a reliability rating, a score of between 1 and 100. If the attack roll is a double and greater than the weapon's reliability, then the weapon suffers a stoppage at the end of the current shooting action. The chance of the stoppage is independent of the chance to hit, being reliant instead upon the reliability of the weapon.

Just a random musing, of course...
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on October 01, 2009, 10:14:58 PM
In the current draft, I haven't explicitly spelled it out but you would get a number of hits equal to the result, but then a stoppage.
That rather sounds like it could be a good thing, in that every shot you fire hits, and the other rounds are still sitting in the magazine waiting.

Does that mean that if you shoot targets which are further away, or without aiming, your gun becomes more likely to jam..?
Odd, but not entirely untrue. If you're not firing from a reasonably braced position, then certain types of stoppage become more likely. "Limp wristing", where the weapon (typically a pistol) hasn't been held firmly can cause failure to cycle, or stovepipe jams (where a spent case isn't thrown clear and gets caught by the closing bolt).

Can't justify the "more distant target" thing though, but the fact more able shooters are less likely to end up with weapon jams is appropriate enough.

But personally, I like N01-H3R3's suggestion.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: precinctomega on October 02, 2009, 08:31:12 AM
Quote
Does that mean that if you shoot targets which are further away, or without aiming, your gun becomes more likely to jam..?

Yes, it does.  But that's not quite the right way to look at it.  It represents BS as a means of assessing not only a character's accuracy but also their knowledge of weapon maintenance (there's also a Weaponsmith ability).  The low the BS, the more likely they are to suffer a stoppage.
Quote
Give a weapon a reliability rating, a score of between 1 and 100. If the attack roll is a double and greater than the weapon's reliability, then the weapon suffers a stoppage at the end of the current shooting action. The chance of the stoppage is independent of the chance to hit, being reliant instead upon the reliability of the weapon.

Just a random musing, of course...

It's a cool idea.  But I'm trying to reduce the granularity of the Core Rules somewhat.

Possibly an idea for the Optional Rules section, though.

R.
 
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: DapperAnarchist on October 03, 2009, 01:49:11 PM
Note on the availability of sights/weapons - here in Rathmines there are two routes to acquire guns - buy from a criminal, or join the RDF/PDF (our army - Reserve and Permanent Defence Forces). For a sight, one could go to a sports shop, the military surplus shop on Capel St (ok, so thats not Rathmines, but its still Dublin), or even pop into Aldi right now and buy their 3x zoom night-vision sight. Obviously, its not fitted for a weapon - but it probably could be adapted for some basic use.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Inquisitor Cade on November 02, 2009, 05:17:36 PM
How're thinks coming along with the lasguns?

Also, looking back at the plasma gun rules I realised that the heat resistant gloves say that they double the reload time. For plasma weapons (that is almost always what they will be used with) this means that it will always be faster to remove the gloves, reload, and then put them back on. This seems uncharacterful.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on November 03, 2009, 06:42:06 PM
How're thinks coming along with the lasguns?
Up until this morning, on and off.

This morning however, my laptop's graphics card decided to give up. I keep regular enough back-ups (not that it's the hard drive that's exploded, but it at least means I can do some work off my external harddrive on another machine), and it's still under warranty, but until it gets repaired, it's really going to slow or halt whatever projects I've got going.

Good point about the heat gloves. I'll look into that.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on November 29, 2009, 02:29:14 AM
Ugh. I REALLY shouldn't have done it when I'm already pressed for the time to try and get other things sorted out, but...

Revised Inquisitor Armoury, Alpha Version #5 (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?wl3gy4m0zii)

And before you ask... yes, there are draft lasweapon rules in this one. They're a bit rough around the edges, but they are there.

There's also crude (and as of yet, only loosely tested) Graviton gun rules - which will probably get cut back from the current 5 firing modes, but I'd like to see which of the five you like, and which you don't.

Needle weapons have been added, if slightly cursorily. I've tried to shift the focus on them away from direct damage and make them more... passive weapons. If you really want to do damage, you can use the new explosive needles, but for the most part, I've tried to make it so they're about the effects of the toxins.

There's also a slight update on two of the shotgun shells in an attempt to better represent the way that shot spreads out, offering an increased likelihood of multiple hits at close range, but less hits at long range. It's based to some extent on Precinct Omega's Inq2 semi rules - it may be a little over complex (let me know if you think so), but I've tried to keep the maths reasonably simple.*

*Probably the story of the RIA as a whole. Trying to add in variety and some accuracy without making any single rule too clunky.

There are a few other minor fixes, but nothing too big.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: N01H3r3 on November 29, 2009, 02:43:38 AM
And before you ask... yes, there are draft lasweapon rules in this one. They're a bit rough around the edges, but they are there.
I like the first draft of the lasweapon rules. As something I've pondered previously, I've spotted a couple of things I remember from my own research into the existing background surrounding the matter.

21 Megathule lasguns (like the Lucius-pattern ones used by the Death Korps of Krieg) tend to heat up faster than their lower-powered equivalents. In the Lucius-pattern, this is compensated for by a series of heat-sink rings around the barrel, and by reducing the rate of fire (which in turn makes them stylistically more like the rifles used in WWI, fitting the general theme of the Krieg forces).

Beyond that, the background-stated charge-pack sizes are (if memory serves) as follows: 18 mth (my own abbreviation for Megathule) have 60-shot packs, 19 mth use 50-shot packs (or rather, consume the pack's charge in 50 shots), 21 mth like the Lucius-pattern discharge their packs in 25 shots, and per the Dark Heresy rules, Hellguns (25 mth weapons) discharge a standard powerpack in 5 shots, necessitating the use of larger backpack-mounted power supplies.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on November 29, 2009, 06:41:37 PM
Well, I admit that I certainly have to poke around at exact details (including Mth rating affecting rate of fire), as I was winging more than a few things at various times. Trying to piece together various rules so that there were minimal numbers of either truly killer or completely useless combinations.

So yeah, the shot capacities (among other things) are probably somewhat "out there"- but there doesn't seem to be any really canonical answer anyway. The Munitorum Manual lists shot capacities in the range of "150 shots conservative use", but many sources give answers that only stretch to in double figures.

I'll go back over it all in a day or so, but still, you at least get the basic idea of what I'm trying to do - create a system that represents the ubiquity and versatility of lasguns by giving them a what turned out to be a literal* myriad of possible combinations.
I'm hoping that having set down the basic idea, any feedback can help me turn it into a slightly more fluid system, but I at least wanted to offer some rules for a mostly complete Imperial armoury before the IGT.

*Literal in the sense that there are actually exactly 10,000 possible lasgun combinations - 10,000 being the classical value of a myriad.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Inquisitor Cade on November 30, 2009, 08:50:00 PM
I make no secret that I favour las weapons and I like a lot of what you've done here. I'd certainly have done some things differently though.

I'd have thought that the power packs would be the same for laspistols and lasrifles. I prefered the way N01H3r3 did it back in the day, with several sizes of powerpack, and while it was assummed that pistols would typically have the smaller version and rifles the larger, they weren't limited to either, so it was possible to have a laspistol that takes the same powerpacks as a lasgun. I think the 40k cadian infantry laspistol is an example of this.

In fact I don't think it is necessary to do laspistols separate from lasguns at all. If you renamed the powerpacks and discharge generators from the pistol list and added a rifle or pistol suffix to some of the barrels and frames you could make it all a single, more versetile list.

I think having default power modes other than low is too complex and unecessary when there are megathule ratings already. I'd keep low as default for all of them.

I'd also not label the discharge generators after Mars etc. The whole point is that there are thousands of lasgun patterns from thousands of worlds. Saying they have to be based of a design from one of five worlds seems to fly in the face of that a bit.

Lastly for now, I think you've been a bit harsh with the ranges. You said that a lasgun shoots in a straght line forever, yet lasweapons have worse range that the equivalent autogun.

I'm afraid there is more, mostly originating from our different envisionings of the humble lasgun, but to end for now on a positive, I think the doppler muzzles are great.

Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Aidan on November 30, 2009, 10:12:57 PM
Congrats on making Lasweapons interesting. I like what you've done with them, although admittedly I don't understand much about them so I can't judge if you've done them right. But these rules will allow me to reproduce all the alternate designs of lasweapons I've been throwing out there in my campaigns, this time with guidelines.

I would say that the magazine sizes are a little gigantic, but from my experience lasweapons almost never run out in a scenario anyway, given their huge number of shots compared to rate of fire (I mean, who is ever going to shoot 30 times with a laspistol in one scenario?). With your increased rates of fire, I can see more use for big magazines, but some do still look a bit large. We'll see what happens.

-Aidan.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on November 30, 2009, 11:56:10 PM
Quote from: Inquisitor Cade
In fact I don't think it is necessary to do laspistols separate from lasguns at all.
It can probably be avoided, and I did consider it at one point.

However, this then means you have more "mutually exclusive" parts on each list, and I thought it would be a better idea to just have two separate lists than one with lots of "if this, then not this or if that, then you must have this".

Quote
I think having default power modes other than low is too complex and unecessary when there are megathule ratings already.
I recognise it's not great. What I should probably do is simplify it by building in "Medium" automatically - making it so that the generator is +2 damage, but half shots, then shifting down the power modes by one step.

Quote
I'd also not label the discharge generators after Mars
You have a better option than naming them after the Forge world where the pattern originated? They can't be simplified into a basic description too easily, and it's better than numbering them.

Quote
Lastly for now, I think you've been a bit harsh with the ranges.
I probably have. Like I said, the lasgun rules as a whole are rough around the edges, and designed to give a flavour of the intended end result. I've been penning these rules since an early stage of the project, and I admit that some problems have hung on from the original drafts.

I'll be fixing things with some kind of update soon (well, less time than this one took).

Quote
but to end for now on a positive, I think the doppler muzzles are great.
Something of a misnomer (and given that Doppler has likely been forgotten in the GrimDark, unlikely in its own right), but I figured it was a shortcut to "different wavelengths".

Ideally, I'd like to make "Blueshift muzzles" at least slightly distinct from conventional AP ammunition, but I'll work on that as I go.

I would say that the magazine sizes are a little gigantic...
Probably. I kinda need to find a way of making it so that the shot count of modestly powered lasguns isn't insane, but more powerful weapons aren't reloading too frequently.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Inquisitor Cade on December 01, 2009, 12:58:05 AM
Quote
However, this then means you have more "mutually exclusive" parts on each list, and I thought it would be a better idea to just have two separate lists than one with lots of "if this, then not this or if that, then you must have this".

Why not rely on wysiwyg. Sure the rules don't stop you having a laspistol with a longlas barrel, but do you have a convincing model of one? If I somehow contrive a model of a bullpup weapon with a gyrostabalised stock then why shouldn't it be allowed?

Quote
You have a better option than naming them after the Forge world where the pattern originated? They can't be simplified into a basic description too easily, and it's better than numbering them.

But maybe my lasgun isn't based on a design from one of those forgeworlds... I'd go with classic, high power, supercharged, standard and multi, respecively, or something like that.

incedentaly, what fire mechanism do you envision the kantreal and the necromunda patterns having that allow semi 3 or 4 but not semi 2?
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Dust King on December 01, 2009, 01:29:04 AM
First off great rules, I'm finally going to get round to giving one of my characters a laspistol because of these rules because no one in my warband actually uses a lasgun (aside from a guard veteran with a multilaser, but I hope they will be included in the armoury eventually ;) )

Also I like the doppler muzzle, I think this is probably one of the best answers to the question of what colour are las shots.

Also the plasma flamer looks very interesting, I'm already having character ideas based around that weapon.

The gravaton gun also looks good, perhaps you could deal with the different fire modes by giving them a minimum sagacity (or sagacity test) required for each mode (point and impulse being the simplest to use, wide and repulsion being moderately difficult and control being the hardest) to represent how the gun actually requires you to understand how it works and to think carefully about your "shots"

Needle weapons look better, ignoring half the armour should definitely make them more useful.


Anyway, Good job!!! As always I look forward to what you will do next ;D   
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on December 01, 2009, 01:52:41 AM
Why not rely on wysiwyg.
And as I have said before, the RIA is not meant to account for any and every possible weirdness that players can come up with.

If a player can muster the unlikelihood of a laspistol with a long-las barrel, then they can jolly well write their own rules for the monstrosity. I'm not writing fifty trillion weapon profiles just so no-one EVER has to cope with the horror of coming up with their own stat-lines.

Quote
But maybe my lasgun isn't based on a design from one of those forgeworlds...
Maybe it's not. While I'll look into changing it, is it really any harder to rename "Mars Pattern Discharge Generator" than it is "Classic Pattern Discharge Generator"?

I don't really recommend that people think of anything from the RIA as a "Low Magnum Revolver" or "Light Assault Rifle". I'd much rather hear that someone had a "Casett Pattern 62 Revolver - 9mm Magnum" or a "Jagodian Fully compact reciprocating machine rifle".

The names are placeholders for the purposes of the list. Really, when the weapon actually reaches the character it should HAVE character.

Quote
what fire mechanism do you envision the kantreal and the necromunda patterns having that allow semi 3 or 4 but not semi 2?
Burst fire or whatever.
Sometimes I cut out the Semi(2) option so that the weapon didn't have the advantage of a perfect sliding scale of fire rates.

@Dust King:

- Multilasers are on the way, but will probably be much less versatile. They're not often mass produced for infantry. Alternatively, you can consider the Valdis pattern generator.

- Not quite what I intended with the Doppler muzzle, but I suppose that works.

- The plasma flamer is little more than a split-off of the Sustained mode from the V4 armoury, but okay.

- Interesting idea about linking sagacity and graviton gun performance. I was playing with the idea of treating them similar to the rules for Archeotech in the Explorator's article earlier, but thought it a bit too much. Your suggestion  may be a better idea.

- As far as Needle weapons: Bear in mind, the damage has been halved as well (so its effectiveness versus armour is pretty similar). Like I said, I wanted to make it so that the shot itself was little more than a carrier for the toxin, not something that was a killer in its own right.
I thought it on the unfair side to offer both poisoning and a large chunk added to injury total.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Kaled on December 01, 2009, 07:32:34 AM
The patterns are named after the Forge World which discovered that design rather than on which Forge World a particular weapon was made, so having a set of Discharge Generators named after Forge Worlds makes perfect sense.  So if someone's lasgun was made based on a design from some other Forge World then either it can counts as one of the existing patterns or they need to make up your own rules - seems a sensible enough system to me.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Ynek on December 07, 2009, 01:51:41 AM
Just took a look over your graviton rules, and I can't help but feeling that someone's been playing a quite a bit of Half-life 2 recently. :P

Anyway, I quite liked the rules, but I would like to have seen options for different types of graviton gun. For instance, one type might be more powerful, capable of creating a gravity field powerful enough to crush a man under his own weight... Or perhaps there would be a firing mode which caused someone's armour to collapse in on itself whilst the character is still inside....

Just a couple of ideas. On the whole, the revised armoury is coming along beautifully, and I look forward to seeing what other ideas you come out with in due time.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on December 07, 2009, 02:37:37 AM
Just took a look over your graviton rules, and I can't help but feeling that someone's been playing a quite a bit of Half-life 2 recently.
I can't really. My laptop has now either been out of commission or taken away for repair for 5 weeks now, so no gaming unfortunately.

Either way, it was my brother who misheard me as "Gravity Gun", and I thought I might as well play with the idea.

Quote
For instance, one type might be more powerful, capable of creating a gravity field powerful enough to crush a man under his own weight...
Potentially, but I wasn't looking for the Graviton Gun to be a deadly weapon. Still, the basic "Point" mode does include some potential to do damage, representing the character being badly overcome by their increased weight.

Quote
Or perhaps there would be a firing mode which caused someone's armour to collapse in on itself whilst the character is still inside....
Well, really, that strength of gravity would be lethal with or without the armour thrown into the mix.

Although there is an interesting idea there. I'm reminded of the "Rule of Burning Iron" spell from Warhammer (where a character's armour basically heats up, causing more damage the heavier said armour is).
Perhaps there's room for a weapon that uses electromagnetic induction and *insert technobabble and pseudoscience here* - thus causing any metals a character might be carrying to heat up, be that weapons, armour, etc.

That would be a fun one to use on over-equipped characters... "Yeah, your power armour has started to melt into your skin I'm afraid."
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Ynek on December 07, 2009, 01:54:57 PM
That would be a fun one to use on over-equipped characters... "Yeah, your power armour has started to melt into your skin I'm afraid."

That's pretty much what I had in mind - Such a piece of equipment would make weighing down your character with too much armour that little bit less attractive.

Quote
Or perhaps there would be a firing mode which caused someone's armour to collapse in on itself whilst the character is still inside....
Well, really, that strength of gravity would be lethal with or without the armour thrown into the mix.

Not necessarily... Since the effect of the gravity field itself would basically be like having a human lie on his back whilst an immensely powerful gravitational force pulls down on him. He might survive it, but adding weights onto his chest, such as carapace armour plates, could compress his ribcage making breathing difficult.

However, the energy demands of such a weapon would be considerable, as generating that number of gravitons would certainly be extremely expensive in energy terms. I would imagine it might even expend the entire power cell in a single shot.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Inquisitor Cade on January 09, 2010, 11:58:29 AM
I had a look back at this, and unless I'm mistaken the Hellgun you've put together has a bullpup frame and a stock, which you've forbidden, and the profile is from the 21 megathule chamber, not the 28 megathule on that it should be.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on January 09, 2010, 04:24:19 PM
Yeah, you've found one of the mistakes the upcoming V5.1 update will be correcting.
I messed that one up - it's got the wrong chamber, and the profile actually refers to no possible combination of parts, legal or illegal.

I'll be going through fixing things here and there before I start work on the V6 expansion - although what V6 will include, I don't know.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on January 29, 2010, 12:37:41 PM
Version V5.1 - only very minor errata and changes, I'm afraid.

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?z2z10onyfy3
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Nemesis on February 23, 2010, 05:06:19 AM
Hellgun [range E] [Mode Single/Semi 3] [Damage 2D6+5] Shots[15]

Spectre assualt rifle form dark heresy inquisitor handbook

"Spectre" [Range C] [Mode Single/Semi 3/Auto 10] [Damage 2D6+2] [Shot 30x3] [Reload 2 each mag]
Aux shotgun [Range E] Mode Single/Auto 4*] [Damage 2D6+2] [Shot 4] [Reload 2]

Mods - Laser sight, Infrascope, Mag selector(3), Aux weapon.

Auto mode for the Aux Shotgun is a risky action which will lead to the Shotgun chamber becoming ethier 1-3 Jammed 4-6 Aux weapon Destroyed



Nomad sniper rifle form dark heresy inquisitor handbook

"Nomad" [Range H] [Mode Single] [Acc +10] [Damage 2D6+4] [Shot 4] [Reload 2]

Mods - Range Finder, Motion predictor.

Hyper-Density Penetrators Ammo form dark heresy inquisitor handbook

Damage 2D6+6
*When hit by HDP ammo the Target takes a Toughness test (minus Damage) if failed knocked prone
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on February 23, 2010, 04:22:20 PM
Spectre assualt rifle form dark heresy inquisitor handbook
The spectre has magazines of 20 rounds in the DH Inquisitor Handbook, not 30 rounds.

I needn't have to give my opinions on rifle and shotgun damage - those are well enough recorded in the Armoury.

Quote
Nomad sniper rifle form dark heresy inquisitor handbook
Personally, I'd represent that with my AMR rules - it's meant to be a big, heavy and powerful long range rifle, which is... well, pretty much exactly what the Macmillan Tac-50 (that I based the AMR profile on) equates to.

Quote
When hit by HDP ammo the Target takes a Toughness test (minus Damage) if failed knocked prone
I'm sorry but "I'm going to use this penetrator round in order to knock you off your feet"? That's really pushing things a bit.

What I'd do for that is use the rules I set out for the Supercavitating ammunition.

~~~~~

Actually, on that note, I'm planning to swap the bonuses of the Manstopper and Supercavitating projectiles in the next version of the Armoury - I think they make better sense that way around.

There's been some delay in working out the next version - because I'm writing the whole thing up "in character". I intend to elevate it from just a list of profiles, instead presenting it as a guide to firearms, where the "author" explains the advantages and disadvantages behind different weapons.

The intention is to get players thinking "why does my character carry this weapon?", and considering how weapon choice speaks about the character.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Kaled on February 23, 2010, 05:09:34 PM
I'm writing the whole thing up "in character". I intend to elevate it from just a list of profiles, instead presenting it as a guide to firearms, where the "author" explains the advantages and disadvantages behind different weapons.

The intention is to get players thinking "why does my character carry this weapon?", and considering how weapon choice speaks about the character.
That sounds excellent - as you know, I've never been a big fan of just a long list of weapon profiles so this sounds really good; even if the descriptions are just a couple of sentences, it still gives players a lot more to go on than just picking a weapon profile.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on February 23, 2010, 06:21:32 PM
Even if the descriptions are just a couple of sentences, it still gives players a lot more to go on than just picking a weapon profile.
That's the whole thing - all the different parts of a character speak about their background and personality. A particular firearm says all kinds of things, and they should be saying the right things.

I should mention that I'm still going to keep from making the profiles a specific weapon; the statlines aren't meant to represent just one weapon, but are meant to be anonymous, any particular model or name the player wants them to be.

To quote from the draft foreword:
Quote
... the inherent caveat of this guide.  Although it is intended to make an Inquisitor and their servants better aware of the principle forms of firearm which can reasonably purchased or encountered, the extent of the weapons industry within the Imperium (particularly when considering custom built and/or modified weapons, as well as patterns and mark numbers) means that this text can hope to be no more than a foundation to the reader's education in the area.
When you consider the existence of non-Imperial weaponry as well, finding a firearm which is not described within is far from unlikely.

With the sprawling nature of the subject in mind, the data-tables and descriptions in this volume have been simplified down to archetypes that collect functionally similar weapons together.
While this might at first seem odd, I think you will appreciate this from the perspective that it is far more important to be able to recognise the basic capabilities of (for example) a medium calibre magnum revolver than it is to know the small differences that separate a specific example of that class - such as perhaps the Thresi 11mm Cerberus.

Despite its admitted incompleteness, this guide is however far from redundant. After a thorough reading, this text will give any individual a solid foundation on the subject and a reference point for specific firearms...
(I would note that the reason that it's addressed specifically to Inquisitors is because while parts of it would work as a "civilian" guide, there are more than a couple of things within which I don't think the Imperium would be happy to have the riff-raff know about)

I think that explains where I'm going.

I intend to make players think about whether the weapon they're considering is right for the character, and give them a framework that they can hang background off, but it's their job to be coming up with things like model name and such.
In a few cases, it's appropriate (Lasguns at least, as I need to put together specific examples to demonstrate the system), but not something to do everywhere.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Dust King on February 24, 2010, 06:02:19 AM
Ok, that sounds awesome ;D. Especially when it comes to designing opponent characters for single matches, often I just give them a gun which seems to be fitting with their role, but the descriptions sound like a great help for this.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on February 24, 2010, 06:32:55 PM
Well, however you want to use it. I wouldn't necessarily spend much time matching a weapon to a one-off character, but it makes sense to think about the weapon choice of a serious character (they'll have thought about it, so you should as well really), and I want to try and give people the information to do that.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: kurionta on February 24, 2011, 09:24:12 AM
MacroSkoll, do you still have this Revised Inquisitor Armoury?  I tried clicking the links provided and the file was deleted or invalid.  I am very curious to see your suggested changes as I harshly disagree with many of the profiles in the main INQ rulebook. 
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on February 24, 2011, 09:49:24 AM
Sorry about that. Seems Mediafire had changed the link for some reason. The link in the first post should now work again.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: GAZKUL on February 24, 2011, 05:39:28 PM
any chance of advanced Gas based weapons is a future update? stuff along the mustard and nerve gas lines.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on February 24, 2011, 06:43:06 PM
Unlikely. I have little knowledge of biological and chemical warfare, so I wouldn't be able to do them proper justice.

I'd also say I think it would be hard to do them justice in a way which would actually work in game. For the most part, they'd either be excessively powerful or too slow to actually take effect within the same game.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: kurionta on February 26, 2011, 04:27:22 AM
Thank you!  I really like your ideas.  It will definitely help make our INQ games more interesting. 
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Flinty on February 27, 2011, 10:55:23 PM
Marco, your dedication to the production and hosting of what I view as invaluable resources for Inquisitor, is a constant source of humbling amazement. Fanboi transmission ends.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Jamas Orian on March 15, 2011, 06:57:52 PM
I have a pertinent query - will there be an Inq > DH conversion for the revised armoury?
I can't say I'm too much of a fan of the standard DH armoury - although it's simple (and bland) in core - adding the IH stuff makes my brain bleed.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on March 15, 2011, 10:41:07 PM
Potentially, although I'll need more familiarity with the system first. I imagine any Inq2 conversion will probably be combined with a DH version, given some of the similarities.

However, I'm not completely sure there will be an INQ2 version. The apparently more versatile and "upgrade" based armoury probably won't need my obsessive approach.
If there is one at all, it will be a while in the making, because many of the ideas I've tried to develop just aren't going to carry over to INQ2's more consolidated shooting system and will need to be redone completely from scratch.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: GAZKUL on March 16, 2011, 06:55:14 PM
out of curiosity is there any chance of rules for Revolving Rifles, been watching a lot of westerns recently and wondered if there was rules for them, if they're already in then thanks :)
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on March 16, 2011, 09:27:59 PM
Revolver rifles are actually already in development. So you know, planned/in progress additions include:
- Mare's Leg
- Thompson Contender
- MTs-255
- LeMat Revolver
- Xenos Weaponry (Currently only Eldar and Tau, but there may be more)
- Suspensors, recoil dampers and related shooting aids
- A few new ammunition types, including Sorcerous ammunition and Astartes Bolt rounds
- More disrepair effects
- And the one many of people have asked for, modifications and master crafting rules

There are also updates, the most relevant of which are to the Recoil and Hazard rules, but the Neural Shredder is also being rewritten, making it less limpwristed than the last rules did.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Inquisitor Octavian Lars on March 17, 2011, 06:38:43 AM
Can't wait to see the tau rules, from the fluff they were very reliable and easy to recharge. Just a bit of help if you wish to use it
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: GAZKUL on March 17, 2011, 06:37:31 PM
once again you amaze me, can't wait to see the rules.

on the Xenos weapons part, any chance of one or two Ork weapons, perhaps sluggas or shootas? i figured that they'd fall into the category of being heavy, loud,  jam prone, innacurate but with substantial punch.

cheers
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on March 12, 2012, 01:18:01 AM
Afraid this is not version 6 of the Revised Armoury, it's v5.2 - it's basically the updated rules from version 6, but I've dropped a lot of the new additions that I was still procrastinating over (unfortunately, including the Xenos weapons section) and scrapped the fluff passages.
These were things that were taking a long time, so rather than make you wait for me to try and sort those out, here's the improved rules:

http://www.mediafire.com/?tmrdryt6eytxbho

It's not big stuff - a few additions, but it's mostly just standardising things to use the new stock rules (like Rending, Tearing, Light/Heavy AP, Fused projectiles, etc) and some mild changes where I had better ideas later on.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Draco Ferox on March 12, 2012, 06:53:55 PM
You have cleared up many of my questions about the document, and have fixed the spray vs scatter shot rules (in v5.1 scatter was better in every situation). I love the name change for the “compensating for something” revolver, and the new rending and the new rending, tearing and trivial rules add more depth to weapons, which is great. I still have a few questions, however:

1. Do sniper rifles and AMRs come equipped with a telescopic scope as standard (i.e. included in their enc) or do they have to have one fitted as a modification?
2. The heavy stubber has a higher fire rate than the auto stubber- is this right?
3. Are there going to be restrictions on attachments for guns, to prevent things like grenade launchers on pistols?
4. Where are the rules for covering fire, mentioned in the blank rounds section? I see them mentioned in the main rulebook, but can’t find the effects.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Aidan on March 12, 2012, 09:32:05 PM
Excellent, an update! That's enough to get me out of my antisocial corner for a moment.

Looking good. Of course, now I'm going to be spending a while tripping up over older rules (and this is only the .2 update!) but I can see some good improvements. I'll also have to update a lot of profiles (with 80+ characters I have to worry about that more than most).

The simplification of damage rules is great, for a start - particularly the replacement of those negative damage modifiers with 'trivial' damage. This might make AP rounds more attractive, particuarly when put in low damage guns (those poor, suffering PDWs).

Liking the new recoil rules. A great many strength tests will be had now, I think. Am I to infer, however, that 'normal' recoil weapons no longer lose aims on semi-automatic fire?

One rule I think might be needlessly complicated is the new scatter rule. (I understand it powers down the brutality of scatter shot at point-blank) however, I'll give it a try and see how it works out. A good thing abou =][= is the ability to house-rule when you please.

. . .

There are still a few issues I can see - las weapons are still easy to over-power, for example, and I'll have to see if that trivial damage won't underpower some weapons too much.

This should give me a good excuse to cut down on my players' death ray guns, though.  8)

. . .

Might give more feedback as playtesting happens.

-Aidan.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on March 13, 2012, 01:06:58 AM
1. Do sniper rifles and AMRs come equipped with a telescopic scope as standard (i.e. included in their enc) or do they have to have one fitted as a modification?
Unless explicitly stated, weapons come plain. This does mean that sniper weapons can get heavy after bolting a multi-function scope to them, but this is not unrealistic.

Quote
2. The heavy stubber has a higher fire rate than the auto stubber- is this right?
Probably not. I'll flag it for rethinking.

Quote
3. Are there going to be restrictions on attachments for guns, to prevent things like grenade launchers on pistols?
No. While the rules do suggest that Aux weapons are only normally fitted to Basic weapons, if a player can make an odd combination  WSYIWYG, then I can't see why I shouldn't allow it. You could even have multiple Aux weapons on a pistol, but don't blame me if your character gets a reputation as a mall ninja.

Quote
4. Where are the rules for covering fire, mentioned in the blank rounds section? I see them mentioned in the main rulebook, but can’t find the effects.
The Exterminatus Space Marine article.

now I'm going to be spending a while tripping up over older rules (and this is only the .2 update!)
Well, it's not really 5.2. It's really version 6, but it was missing a lot of the content I had promised and thus didn't get the title.
But given how large an overhaul it is, perhaps I should have. Or at least split the difference with v5.5 or 5a or something.

Dunno. Not really important.

Quote
Liking the new recoil rules. A great many strength tests will be had now, I think. Am I to infer, however, that 'normal' recoil weapons no longer lose aims on semi-automatic fire?
No, normal recoil weapons lose their recoil on Semi as they always have - even Light Recoil weapons still do that.
However, Considerable or High Recoil weapons can lose their aim bonuses on single fire or when used by characters with Rock Steady Aim (which I should probably make sure is noted).

And in theory, if I ever introduce High Recoil weapons that can fire on modes other than Single, those could even lose their aim mid-action.

Quote
One rule I think might be needlessly complicated is the new scatter rule. (I understand it powers down the brutality of scatter shot at point-blank)
Actually, they're exactly the same as they've been for all of v5 - reworded to use the "Degrees" terminology, but they play identically.

Quote
las weapons are still easy to over-power, for example
Actually, I did have concerns about this myself, but I broke my nastiest variant yet at the Ammobunker OpenBash on Saturday - the Callahan Fullwave Auto-Las. (Hotshot Magazine, Extended barrel, Blueshift Muzzle, 21 Megathule Lasing chamber, Triplex Phall Discharge Generator, Standard Frame, Skeleton Stock).

A 28 Megathule chamber would be "worse", but even at 21 MTh it was eating power packs like chocolate buttons and despite completely running out of ammo, I didn't actually put anyone out of the game.
In any case, GMs/Players should really be treating hellguns (or approximate equivalents) as getting up towards bolter territory anyway.

However, I think I may agree - and also think I have a solution. Scaling back the capacity of some of the larger powerpacks would mean there was more downside to using increased power settings (as opposed to just having so much ammo that it didn't really matter) without having to nerf damage stats.

Quote
I'll have to see if that trivial damage won't underpower some weapons too much.
It shouldn't do. Trivial(1), when compared to -1 damage, is more likely to beat armour, does more injury total damage and is as able to score two injury levels. It falls down on scoring three levels or more, but that's fairly rare anyway.

~~~~~

In any case, you two have brought up a few good points, so there may be a fairly prompt update to cover a few of these.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: InquisitorHeidfeld on March 13, 2012, 07:42:46 PM
Actually, I did have concerns about this myself, but I broke my nastiest variant yet at the Ammobunker OpenBash on Saturday - the Callahan Fullwave Auto-Las. (Hotshot Magazine, Extended barrel, Blueshift Muzzle, 21 Megathule Lasing chamber, Triplex Phall Discharge Generator, Standard Frame, Skeleton Stock).

A 28 Megathule chamber would be "worse", but even at 21 MTh it was eating power packs like chocolate buttons and despite completely running out of ammo, I didn't actually put anyone out of the game.
In any case, GMs/Players should really be treating hellguns (or approximate equivalents) as getting up towards bolter territory anyway.

Blueshift muzzle... It gets closer to you? :-)

I wouldn't suggest Hellguns should be that potent personally, though a centre mass hit is going to finish you just as effectively a hit in the meat is going to leave a fairly neat hole... whereas a bolter round will penetrate and then explode - removing a large volume of flesh in the process. The wound is likely to be far more significant with a bolt.
While the mechanics don't necessarily differentiate sufficiently (and they certainly don't in 40k, for obvious reasons) it's the attitude of the GM which can turn that differentiation into something which adds to the story - though it can also lead to "meh, it's a flashlight".

I'm also wondering where the Autoguns/pistols are...
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on March 13, 2012, 08:36:11 PM
Blueshift muzzle... It gets closer to you?
While not technically correct language, it's a lot more self-explanatory and easier to remember than the use of more accurate non-linear optics terminology.

Everyone with even passing knowledge of wave physics can remember "Blueshift" and those with a little more can get into their head what it's doing and/or why that might be important. But talking about "Harmonic generation" is going to go over a lot of heads, because it's not typically taught in school physics lessons.

Quote
I wouldn't suggest Hellguns should be that potent personally, a hit in the meat is going to leave a fairly neat hole
The primary wounding effect of a laser weapon would be the explosively fast boiling of the water content of flesh.
In a powerful laser weapon like a hellgun, the wounding effect would be very similar to the "penetrate and then explode" that you've just described bolters with.

In any case, my wording was "towards bolter territory".

Quote
I'm also wondering where the Autoguns/pistols are...
I avoided pinning any of the categories down to either term because they can be such a broad range of things.

Autopistol can easily refer to semi-automatic pistols, machine pistols or SMGs. Hence, an autopistol could come from any of those categories.
Autogun can refer to self-loading carbines, assault rifles and sometimes things that would qualify as light machine guns or squad automatic weapons. Hence, the same applies here.

This choice of terminology will be covered in the fluff expansion, but the autopistols/autoguns have been there since I put out the first version three years ago.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: InquisitorHeidfeld on March 13, 2012, 10:05:17 PM
Except that Autopistols and Autoguns are quite different beasts from the stub-esque weapons used today...

I realise that the Inquisitor rulebook isn't entirely helpful in terms of flavour on the subject so:

"Auto-gun. An auto-gun is comparable to a twentieth century automatic rifle in appearance and operation - although it uses caseless, small calibre ammunition and has a rate of fire far outweighing that ancient weapon. Its main advantage is that it has a long effective range. These weapons often find their way into the hands of human militia, and are the standard arm in some less advanced cultures."

"Auto-pistol. Auto-pistols are rapid firing automatic pistols similar to twentieth century sub-machine guns, but more compact. Still occasionally built on human frontier worlds and carried by less sophisticated aliens, these are deadly weapons at close range."
(From Rogue Trader)

I also seem to remember something suggesting that the munition was explosive tipped and that that was one of the things which separated the Auto-weapons from the stubbers (which, along with Aliens of course, was what prompted me to nominate 10mm explosive tipped caseless for the Autoguns on Shike IV (and yes, 10mm isn't a small calibre round... unless it's the cartridge length)).
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Draco Ferox on March 13, 2012, 10:15:21 PM
A couple of other small things- the descriptions from the last edition of most of the weapon classes seem to have gone walkabout, with only hunting rifles having the description now. For controlled mode on the graviton gun, you have ended up stating the same thing about hazards and burning it out twice- I suspect that this was due to changing the rules to reflect the new hazardous standardisation and not deleting the old piece of text about risky actions. Whilst it doesn't detract anything, it may be a little confusing for newer players to read the same thing twice in your armoury.
          Rifles can't use sorcerous ammunition- this seems sensible, as high ROF sorcerous bullets could prove more effective than a bolter in some cases, but I would imagine that a battle rifle would be the weapon of choice for many who don't want the attention that a sniper rifle brings, and don't have the contacts to acquire a bolter, but similarly want something with more range than a pistol or SMG. The same question applies to PDWs.
        Finally, the pump-action and semi-auto shotgun magazines appear to be the wrong way round, with the semi-auto shotgun having more shots. Again, is this right?

EDIT: Thanks for the clarification regarding auxiliary weapons. I now need to build me a model which has an auxiliary weapon with an attached auxiliary weapon with.... you get the picture.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on March 13, 2012, 11:59:59 PM
Except that Autopistols and Autoguns are quite different beasts from the stub-esque weapons used today.
In some sources, yes. In other sources, no. Your idea of "small calibre, high ROF" autoguns clashes with other sources where a large box magazine is all of twelve shots. Combine those and you'd get half a second worth of ammo per magazine as well as a bruised bum from the recoil.
And there are authors who've written about autogun casings.

With what is now 25 years of 40k, what one person thinks an autogun is will not be the same as the next person's idea. As such, that is why I've rendered equivalents of modern weapons (equivalents at least in role, but not actual performance) into the rules and left it up to the individual to decide what they want their autogun to be.

For you and your definition, then the Light Assault Rifle or Support Rifle would do nicely, perhaps with the "Lightened bolt" upgrade to represent the increased ROF of a caseless weapon.
For someone who likes the idea of an autogun as a brutal beast that can reduce a man's insides to mush with a glance, the High Calibre carbine would work, maybe with Manstopper ammunition.

The descriptions from the last edition of most of the weapon classes seem to have gone walkabout
The descriptions are meant to be being replaced, but they were taking too long, so I removed them so you could get the rules without having to wait. Hunting rifles are one of the cases where I failed to remove the text.

Quote
For controlled mode on the graviton gun...
Whoops. I'll sort that.

Quote
Rifles can't use sorcerous ammunition
Not intentionally, this is an error on my part. Any ROF issues are rather reined in by the cumulative Wp and Nv penalties for every round carried.

Quote
Finally, the pump-action and semi-auto shotgun magazines...
They are the right way around. The PA shotgun is more reliable and lighter, the SA shotgun fires faster and has more capacity.

Quote
EDIT: Thanks for the clarification regarding auxiliary weapons. I now need to build me a model which has an auxiliary weapon with an attached auxiliary weapon with.... you get the picture.
You mean this picture, I take it?
(http://dump4free.com/preview/2/Tacticool%20Gun%20motivational-poster%20%2867%29.jpg)
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Draco Ferox on March 16, 2012, 11:30:52 PM
Just remember, Heidfeld, EYHBTIAL.

Also, one two more questions.

I'm currently using an iPod to view the RIA, and the section for semi-auto pistols seems to be entirely white. I can still highlight the table, and copy and paste entries from it, but it's not displaying. I'll edit this post with wether the same is true for the version on my computer (both the on and off-line versions) tomorrow.

Also, there appears to be an errant "note 1" in red text on the entry for the ultra-light sniper rifle, with nothing underneath the table to describe what it is for.

Just to clear up the scope issue, it was mostly a question from V5.1 where a telescopic sight gave a fixed +10 accuracy bonus, but I figured I might as well include it for the new scope rules, just so I understand fully how to use the armoury.


EDIT: Hmm. The semi-auto pistols appear fine on my computer. Probaly something to do with mobile browsing.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on March 16, 2012, 11:48:12 PM
I'm currently using an iPod to view the RIA, and the section for semi-auto pistols seems to be entirely white.
Not sure why that would be, it's fine on the version I have.

Quote
Also, there appears to be an errant "note 1" in red text on the entry for the ultra-light sniper rifle, with nothing underneath the table to describe what it is for.
Another oops. I'm trying to work on ways to make D6+1 into a more threatening weapon, but didn't get around to deciding which definition I was using.

Quote
Just to clear up the scope issue, it was mostly a question from V5.1 where a telescopic sight gave a fixed +10 accuracy bonus
Nah, it was a +5% to aim actions at 30 yards plus.
Mind you, I thought I'd changed that WAY earlier than this version. Shows how long I've been working on it.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Koval on April 22, 2012, 04:49:07 PM
I downloaded v5.2 to have a look at it -- I wonder how much scope there is for converting this across to DH/RT.

Did I miss something, or do las weapons not have attached rarities?
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on April 22, 2012, 05:44:17 PM
I wonder how much scope there is for converting this across to DH/RT.
Not without a very big re-write, and it would lose a lot of the fine granularity.

For example, a change of 1 damage either way isn't a huge deal in Inquisitor, but it's a big difference in DH. And the Rending/Trivial mechanics (that modify the target's Base Injury) that help add extra depth would also get lost due to the different way toughness works.

I've nicked quite a bit from DH - Tearing for example (the jamming mechanics, despite their similarity, I actually wrote before I had read DH) - but it doesn't go back the other way very well.

Quote
Did I miss something, or do las weapons not have attached rarities?
At present, they don't.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Koval on April 22, 2012, 06:22:52 PM
I wonder how much scope there is for converting this across to DH/RT.
Not without a very big re-write, and it would lose a lot of the fine granularity.
A pity, although it's quite understandable.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Zakkeg on May 15, 2012, 10:09:46 AM
Well, I've finally downloaded the thing.

Contrary to my expectations, I rather love it. Admittedly, the necessity of having twelve different revolvers and fifteen shotguns is somewhat lost on a non-firearms aficionado such as m'self, but certainly I can't see much harm in it. The exotic weapons are pretty solid too; your version of the neural shredder stood out to me, managing to tread the fine line between appropriately nasty and game-breaking. There are still a few kinks to iron out, of course (you didn't mention that explosive needle rounds glow like tracers, for example), but that's only to be expected.

Special mention to the build-your-own-lasgun section, which I thought was absolutely stellar. It immediately brought to mind the bit with Tuco in the gun shop from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, which left me spending five minutes grinning like an idiot whilst mentally translating the whole scene into the 41st millennium. (Well, 42nd, but who's counting?) So cheers for that one, mate. ;D

Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on May 15, 2012, 12:05:38 PM
Admittedly, the necessity of having twelve different revolvers and fifteen shotguns is somewhat lost on a non-firearms aficionado such as m'self, but certainly I can't see much harm in it.
The RIA itself was originally an exercise that followed various requests for "how should I modify the profile to make this a Desert Eagle/.44 Magnum/concealable back-up/etc", and I thus went to the extent of putting a wide range of things into rules to run the gamut of different options.

As for the benefits of such a thing, it is an interesting way of saying a lot about your character. Carrying three compact pistols on different parts of his person at all times would suggest he's more than a little paranoid about being unarmed, but three massive pistols would imply he wanted to intimidate any possible opponents with the knowledge he was armed.

There's a lot more the intervening sliding scale can say too, but of course I wouldn't expect everyone else to have quite the same sense of what various choices might say about the character. Still, I hope it gives people some cause to think about what their character might choose and why.

Quote
The exotic weapons are pretty solid too; your version of the neural shredder stood out to me, managing to tread the fine line between appropriately nasty and game-breaking.
I should admit that it's actually my second revision of it, given I neutered it far too heavily last time around.

The aim was to make it less clunky than the rulebook's version, which is a total mess of rolling (roll a Wp test, roll individually to reduce each of three stats, roll again on that new Wp, etc, etc). Worse, in many ways, than full auto fire for holding up the game (particularly as now I tend to roll full-auto several shots at once - rolling a handful of dice for just the tens part of the D100, then rolling the die again to get the units if it's necessary).
This way is less dice rolling intensive, and I believe also a better representation of the debilitation of having your brains scrambled, which would affect things like motor control as well.

Quote
You didn't mention that explosive needle rounds glow like tracers, for example
Good point. Added into the file for the next revision.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Zakkeg on July 23, 2012, 09:54:06 AM
Well, here I am again. I've a few notes that I've been meaning to give you for ages, if that's alright? (Only took two months and a bit...) Right then, from the top:

Thermal Sights: I have a bit of an issue with the placed shot penalty. Admittedly, I've never actually looked down a thermal scope, but if the display's anything like an infrared camera then I can't see how it would make fine aim problematic. (Not once you got used to it, anyway.) Might even make it a bit easier in some cases. Maybe have the penalty only apply to low-end versions, and kick the high-end ones up a notch rarity wise?

Shot Shell (SP): Doesn't work in the same way as scatter shot from an actual shotgun. Is this deliberate?

Tracer: This one's a bit weird, because the rules as stated make perfect sense. However, as I understand it the common procedure with tracers and automatic weapons is to load them every fifth round (or so), which becomes rather clunky when applied to Inquisitor. Thoughts?

Ripper Gun: Same problem as the shot shell. Besides which, I thought ripper guns were meant to fire solid slugs?

Spray Shot: Just seems... unsatisfactory. The general idea (cinematically, at least) is that if you point it in the foe's general direction and squeeze the trigger, you're very likely to at least wing him - something which the current rules do absolutely bugger all to facilitate. Perhaps a hefty positive accuracy modifier would be appropriate. Also, having to calculate degrees of success anew with each shot is a wee bit clunky. (Also applies to scatter shot.) If I might make a suggestion, how about an extra hit per degree for scatter shot, two degrees for spray, and a hard range cap of 30 yards or so? I'd be bloody amazed if you could do much serious damage with most forms of scatter shot from more than 90', in any case...

Bean-Bag Rounds: Range band 'E' seems decidedly optimistic to me. 'A' might be more appropriate. Also, it'd be fair to impose a damage penalty past a certain range; bean-bag rounds tend to lose momentum very quickly. Down to D6 damage past 20 yards, and nothing at all past 30. Something like that. On the other hand, you could also allow them to cause location damage within 5-10 yards. Though that might be an unnecessary layer of complexity.

Wych-Bolts: It's not entirely clear what these are supposed to be - are they made of special materials, or are they simply inscribed bolter rounds? (Not hugely important of course, but potentially useful to know in a campaign.)

Backpack Tanks (Flame Weapons): Really seems like they should more than double the shot capacity; the tanks will generally have far more than twice the capacity of the usual screw-in canisters if we go by WYSIWYG.

Guess that's it then. (I won't bore you with the extra lasweapon components I've come up with. Not just now in any case. ;)) Hope at least some of it was useful!
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on July 23, 2012, 02:04:39 PM
From the top in kind...

Thermal Sights: First things first, the 40k version of the IR sight isn't exactly 100% realistic (most objects are actually infrared opaque and can't actually be seen through).

In any case, we're not talking about a top of the line infra-red camera, we're talking about something that has to be light and small enough to mount on a weapon and durable enough to survive the weapon's recoil, nasty conditions and the like. From genuine thermal sights, this kind of sight picture isn't unusual:
(http://www.nightvisionsystems.com/weblev/user_upload/XL_UTWS%20Fence%2005%202x.bmp)

Sure, you can guess where limbs are, but you have to guess. Seeing as the thermal sight offers the large advantage of being able to see and shoot completely concealed targets, I think it's reasonable that they perhaps aren't quite so pin-point accurate. (Scoring head shots through brick walls might be more than a little unpopular.)

Shot shell: This is changing in the next version to use similar rules to Spray Shot. The buckshot rules changed in v5 and a few things were left behind.

Tracer: In practice, these rules are not entirely realistic. A tracer round won't provide any improvement to its own hit chance (once it's fired, knowing where it went doesn't help it hit!), they're only loaded every few rounds, etc. But it seemed like a fairly simple approximation.

An alternative might be making it so that tracer rounds don't count towards multiple shot penalties (to some reasonable limit, no "all-tracer" and no penalty) or at least count less, but that might complicate things, having to track which shots in a mixed magazine were tracer and which were something else. (Or perhaps make auto fire scarily accurate.) Still, perhaps to be thought about.

Ripper Gun: I was fairly sure it does fire shot, given the general inability of Ogryns to aim. And again, the rules are also being brought into line with the current rules for shot.

Spray Shot: It will be getting a hit bonus in the next version (but changing to Range Band A). The exact size of this bonus will depend on whether I give it a rule like Dark Heresy's inaccurate quality (i.e. it doesn't get any aiming bonus) for just being useless beyond "point in vague direction and pull trigger". (I should add that this kind of thing isn't exactly realistic, but sometimes it's about being cinematic rather than perfectly realistic.)

As for the sliding scale of degrees of success, I don't feel the mental maths of dividing by round numbers like 5 or 10 and rounding it up is clunky (or do it the other way - round up to the next whole 5 or 10, divide. Easy) compared to things like the range modifier system.

I'd say no to a range cap. I did them in older versions of the rules, but I'm phasing them out as bullets don't suddenly stop in mid-air. I prefer a more gradual tail off in effectiveness - in this case, caused by the fairly short range bands and the lesser chance of multiple hits at longer range rather than a hard limit.
Also, unlike video games would have the world believe, buckshot is nasty out to some pretty long distances. With the right choke, it could still make a nasty mess of you at 50 metres, and I still wouldn't fancy my chances further out than that!
(My rules probably hinder its ranged effectiveness more than is realistic, but it does have to be exaggerated a bit so it actually makes a difference.)

Bean-Bag rounds: A lot of (but not all) A and E range bands are swapping in the next version, because on reconsideration I think I put them the wrong way around.
I'm not sure about their damage mechanism at the moment. It needs re-thought, but yeah, the damage is likely to change to "3D3 Diminishing". (Diminishing is basically the same as Melta guns work - lose a damage die for each 10 yards of range. There are some weapons where it'll be useful.)

Wych-Bolts: They were in BL fluff somewhere I think, but I can't remember where. I'd say just inscribed with appropriate litanies and sanctified. So potentially they could be made from regular rounds, if someone were brave and skilled enough to try and inscribe devotional scripture into a live bolter round.

Backpack Tanks: Compared to the weapon mounted tanks, yes - but in truth, those are too small.
And given a single shot from a flame weapon can potentially put multiple characters out of the game (most likely through chain reaction burning), I think doubling a regular flamer's capacity to 12 shots without having to stop and reload is already enough.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Zakkeg on July 23, 2012, 03:28:33 PM
Thermal Sights: Ah, fair enough then. Not quite what I was picturing. (Of course, Imperial tech is a good deal more advanced than ours; they just don't know it. As you've pointed out, most of ours can't see through walls.) I can't imagine "head shots through brick walls" would be a huge problem though; you've already negated the possibility with the bit about reducing the base spotting distance (4yds) by half the cover's AV. Perhaps "no placed shots through cover" would work a bit better?

Tracer: Again, it seems to me like you've already accounted for that (as they have no effect on single fire). It would be a touch more accurate to make the bonus progressive, but that would of course slow things down a hell of a lot. As for the other bit - dunno. I certainly haven't got a good solution. But if I've got you thinking about it, that's mission accomplished on my end. ;D

Ripper Gun: Not sure where I got the idea they were slug throwers. Having checked, the 40k range is only 12", so you could well be right. That said, they're also listed at S5, assault 3. Just, y'know, for reference.

Spray Shot: New version sounds much better. Might also want to add a note that placed shots are effectively impossible. (I'd had a vague notion that it was in there somewhere, but I couldn't find it just now.)

Regarding the maths, you're right in that you aren't exactly asking us to divide by pi or anything. However, I do feel as though it's an extra step that could be done away with without doing much harm.

Fair enough RE: the range cap. Though I still have a hard time imagining that you'd inflict much more than a flesh wound at those ranges (bar hitting an artery or something, of course). Of course, a flesh wound is still a far cry from the shot just pelting harmlessly off one's chest... so it appears I've managed to talk myself out of my objection. :P

Bean-Bag Rounds: Again, sounds much better. You could also incorporate something about hard vs. soft armour; ignoring mesh is perfectly logical, but a bean bag round hitting a carapace breastplate is going to accomplish sweet bugger all. (Unless the wearer of said breastplate is standing on a ledge, of course... It's suddenly occurred to me that they should probably inflict double knockback damage, like a hammer. Perhaps even more.)

Wych-Bolts: About what I'd figured. Ta for clearing it up.

Backpack Tanks: I see your reasoning here, but I don't like it. First off, there's no reason to assume that the standard promethium tanks are too small; we don't really have a solid catalogue of its properties. Perhaps a little simply goes a long way. Second, I strenuously object to the suspension of logic* in the name of game balance - particularly when there are ways to achieve both. Like, say, allowing for the possibility of a stray shot hitting the tank and causing it to detonate (a very real possibility, what with the tank's vastly increased profile). And for those who object to the possibility of their characters being suddenly doused head to foot in burning promethium, there's a very simple solution: leave the backpack tanks at home. My thoughts on the matter, in any case.

Oh, and apropos of nothing: I've just** downloaded your planetary data calculator. Fun little tool, that.


*Film logic is still logic, of a kind.

**Well, a week or so ago.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on July 23, 2012, 11:01:20 PM
Quote
I can't imagine "head shots through brick walls" would be a huge problem though
Well, no, not brick walls (given I actually wrote the rules with the intent that brick walls were opaque), but being able to see through terrain and ignore darkness is still quite a large bonus.

In any case, the armoury offers the opportunity to think about where a character draws their balance between the strengths and weaknesses of the equipment they choose to use. As such, I've introduced drawbacks to various weapons and equipment.
There might well be uber versions of thermal scopes, but I feel it's more interesting to encourage thought of pros/cons rather than having clear cut answers as to what is "the best".

Quote
Might also want to add a note that placed shots are effectively impossible. (I'd had a vague notion that it was in there somewhere, but I couldn't find it just now.)
There is such a rule in there, but it's used by Executioner rounds (as they're programmed to lock on to and track a target, the shooter is only partly responsible for where they hit).

It will be introduced though, possibly as part of the "inaccurate" rule (which I might call "Imprecise" to make combining it with a large hit modifier a little less confusing).

Quote
However, I do feel as though it's an extra step that could be done away with without doing much harm.
I am tempted, but as I don't want to put a hard limit on range, I feel that making it every extra degree for scatter shot might improve its effective range a bit much and every two degrees perhaps not beneficial enough at short range.

I'll run some numbers and see how it works. No promises though - I don't feel it's actually that ugly.

Quote
Though I still have a hard time imagining that you'd inflict much more than a flesh wound at those ranges
In real life, 00 (or "double-ought") buckshot at 50 metres puts a scattering of 9 to 12 pieces of lead, all with about the same energy as a .32 ACP (as in James Bond's famous Walther PPK) would have at the muzzle, through an circle maybe 1-1.5m across - so, that's a dozen pieces of still potentially lethal lead travelling through an area I'd make up a large portion of were I in it. I'd consider that quite dangerous!

Quote
You could also incorporate something about hard vs. soft armour; ignoring mesh is perfectly logical, but a bean bag round hitting a carapace breastplate is going to accomplish sweet bugger all.
The intention is that the "ignores up to 4 points of armour" line is to be played like this this (armour 4 points or less tending to be "soft" or at least partially flexible, 5 points or more tending to be hard). However, the intent is perhaps unclear, so I've taken the choice to reword it to "ignores armour of 4 points or less".

Backpack Tanks:First off, there's no reason to assume that the standard promethium tanks are too small; we don't really have a solid catalogue of its properties.[/quote]
It's little to do with how energetically it burns. We know Promethium is a liquid at room temperature. I can recall no mention of it being unusually dense - it would be quite a notable thing to omit so it's reasonably to assume that like most liquids, it has a density with a density of less than 2g/cc. (At the moment, I can only think of two that exceed that at room temperature - Mercury and Bromine. Something like Gallium is  marginal, as it has a melting point of 303K)

Substances of low density are not aerodynamic, and liquids are even less so (as they're capable of breaking apart into smaller drops that have higher proportional drag due to the square-cube law). To get them over a distance of a a few tens of feet, you have to use a large nozzle and high velocity. Fluid flow rate is cross sectional area times velocity, so to get liquids over a long distance, you use them up very fast. Combine that with a small tank size, and you'll be lucky to get two or three meaningful bursts of fuel, let alone six.

Dark Heresy actually agrees with me, as its flamers have a shot count of 3.

Quote
Second, I strenuously object to the suspension of logic in the name of game balance
I should admit, then, that there are a lot more cases where logic or realism have been bent for the sake of making things more playable than just this one.
Under any circumstances, the factors of logic, realism, balance and simplicity all need to be taken into consideration - but ultimately, it has to be remembered that it is a game; entertainment and playability are not negotiable factors.

But here's an idea. If I reduce the number of shots the weapon mounted tanks get, but increase the backpack modifier - it fixes my issue with the small regular tanks getting too many shots and your issue with their relative sizes, but without giving the user enough fuel to time-consumingly (given the number of dice needed for a flame attack) incinerate everyone else on the table twice over.

Quote
Like, say, allowing for the possibility of a stray shot hitting the tank and causing it to detonate (a very real possibility, what with the tank's vastly increased profile).
Well that is movie logic. Fun, but not at all realistic.

...I'll give it a think.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Zakkeg on July 24, 2012, 05:19:29 AM
In any case, the armoury offers the opportunity to think about where a character draws their balance between the strengths and weaknesses of the equipment they choose to use. As such, I've introduced drawbacks to various weapons and equipment.
There might well be uber versions of thermal scopes, but I feel it's more interesting to encourage thought of pros/cons rather than having clear cut answers as to what is "the best".

Fair enough.

Quote
There is such a rule in there, but it's used by Executioner rounds (as they're programmed to lock on to and track a target, the shooter is only partly responsible for where they hit).

It will be introduced though, possibly as part of the "inaccurate" rule (which I might call "Imprecise" to make combining it with a large hit modifier a little less confusing).

That'll probably be the one I was thinking of. And yes, "Imprecise" does sound better.

Quote
I'll run some numbers and see how it works. No promises though - I don't feel it's actually that ugly.

Just give it a think, that's all I ask. :)

Quote
In real life, 00 (or "double-ought") buckshot at 50 metres puts a scattering of 9 to 12 pieces of lead, all with about the same energy as a .32 ACP (as in James Bond's famous Walther PPK) would have at the muzzle, through an circle maybe 1-1.5m across - so, that's a dozen pieces of still potentially lethal lead travelling through an area I'd make up a large portion of were I in it. I'd consider that quite dangerous!

Well, yes, but there's also the matter of how that energy is directed and transferred. That said, it's really more or less academic, so I'll concede the point.

Quote
The intention is that the "ignores up to 4 points of armour" line is to be played like this this (armour 4 points or less tending to be "soft" or at least partially flexible, 5 points or more tending to be hard). However, the intent is perhaps unclear, so I've taken the choice to reword it to "ignores armour of 4 points or less".

Makes sense. You could also try "ignores all armour of AV4 or less." (Though come to think of it, is AV an "official" acronym? I've been using it for years, anyway.)

Quote
[fluid dynamics]

Alright, you've got me. I'd been thinking that the promethium could be quite finely atomized, without really considering what that would do to the effective range. Although...

Quote
Dark Heresy actually agrees with me, as its flamers have a shot count of 3.

This from a man who (vocally) considers Abnett an unrliable witness? Don't get me wrong - I love the 40kRP stuff for the most part, but given that Ascension explicitly allows one to spec into becoming a Vindicare assassin...

Quote
I should admit, then, that there are a lot more cases where logic or realism have been bent for the sake of making things more playable than just this one.
Under any circumstances, the factors of logic, realism, balance and simplicity all need to be taken into consideration - but ultimately, it has to be remembered that it is a game; entertainment and playability are not negotiable factors.

Bending realism's fine; I'm just bothered by something as egregious as massive discrepancies in actual volume vs gameplay volume. I agree that playability is non-negotiable; I simply don't think balance has much to do with it where Inquisitor is concerned. (Not if you're doing it right, anyway.)

Quote
But here's an idea. If I reduce the number of shots the weapon mounted tanks get, but increase the backpack modifier - it fixes my issue with the small regular tanks getting too many shots and your issue with their relative sizes, but without giving the user enough fuel to time-consumingly (given the number of dice needed for a flame attack) incinerate everyone else on the table twice over.

That works.

Quote
Well that is movie logic. Fun, but not at all realistic.

Er, yes. "Real" was admittedly a very poor choice of word on my part. What can I say? I was sleepy. :P

Quote
...I'll give it a think.

Job's a good 'un. ;D
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Koval on July 24, 2012, 06:52:08 AM
This from a man who (vocally) considers Abnett an unrliable witness? Don't get me wrong - I love the 40kRP stuff for the most part, but given that Ascension explicitly allows one to spec into becoming a Vindicare assassin...
As dubious as the inclusion of Vindicare Assassins is in DH:A, it's not actually handled all that badly in the book itself.

In any case, ad hominem against Marco notwithstanding, the only 40KRP book I can find in which Abnett is mentioned is the core rulebook for Dark Heresy, in which he's one of several people mentioned under "With Major Thanks To:".
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on July 24, 2012, 12:32:16 PM
Quote
Though come to think of it, is AV an "official" acronym? I've been using it for years, anyway.
I don't know if it's official, but it's regularly used and rather obvious in context.

Quote
This from a man who (vocally) considers Abnett an unreliable witness?
While I am vocal about Abnett, any involvement he had on the 40k RP rules is at best indirect - made only through his contributions to the melange that makes up 40k fluff and thus what 40kRP was based on. He's a Black Library author, not a games designer.

As such, I don't see my issues with Abnett are relevant here.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Zakkeg on July 24, 2012, 12:33:37 PM
In any case, ad hominem against Marco notwithstanding, [...]

Wait, what?! Oh bugger. No, no, sorry; I didn't mean it that way at all. Just meant to point out what I saw as an amusing little irony, not undermine Marco's argument. The only reason it wasn't accompanied by one of these (;)) is that I try to limit my emoticon abuse to three per post. (Nor did I intend to imply a direct connection between DH and Abnett.)

(That said, there's really no good way to handle just joining up with the Officio Assassinorum...

...

;))



(ADDENDUM: Bugrit. Ninja'd. Curse my abominably slow phone-typing skills...)
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Koval on July 24, 2012, 07:05:53 PM
(That said, there's really no good way to handle just joining up with the Officio Assassinorum...

...

;))

What Ascension does, in a nutshell, is imply that the candidate has Ordo Sicarius backing (or at least backing from someone in the Inquisition). I doubt the Officio Assassinorum want to annoy the Inquisition, hence the means of A) seeing if the guy's any good in the first place B) bringing him up to speed. It's not an overnight thing :P
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Zakkeg on July 25, 2012, 09:32:41 AM
Oh, I know. I've got the book; this isn't something I've heard of secondhand. I'm just saying the whole thing was a bad idea to begin with. (Especially since, if I recall correctly, requisitioning an Officio assassin is one of the few things an Inquisitor does NOT have the authority to do*, nor do the assassins themselves have carte blanche to go after whatever target strikes their fancy - so even if an Inquisitor could somehow push an acolyte above the age of four into the temple for training there'd be no guarantee they could get them back out again.)

But is this really the best place for this particular debate?

*In theory at least, though admittedly a good Inquisitor is nothing if not an expert at finding the cracks.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Gilleon on July 31, 2012, 09:48:25 AM
Wych-Bolts: They were in BL fluff somewhere I think, but I can't remember where. I'd say just inscribed with appropriate litanies and sanctified. So potentially they could be made from regular rounds, if someone were brave and skilled enough to try and inscribe devotional scripture into a live bolter round.

If you are thinking of the same thing I am Marco, I believe they are mentioned in the Deathwatch rulebook as having "a small core of neuro-inhibitors with warp-reductive compounds" or something along those lines. Not sure if that helps or not. And don't worry, i think of DH as "BL fluff" as well. ;)
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on July 31, 2012, 03:16:58 PM
Similar name, different concept. The source I went from was basically a poor-man's version of psycannon rounds, not some kind of psychic disruption.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Quickdraw McGraw on August 17, 2012, 05:48:02 AM
I just finished reading through the RIA 5.2.  It's really good!  I love the detail too! I can't even image the number of man-hours put into this!

The last time I looked at the RIA was a few years ago( long time lurker).  Back then I didn't feel I needed to change as the guns in the rulebook were fine with me.  And still are.    ;)  But be as it may, I was the one really missing out.   :P  I will be definitely be giving these another look over if I want to modify any of characters current guns.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 17, 2012, 01:57:11 PM
To move this discussion (http://www.the-conclave.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2093.msg28698#msg28698) somewhere where it won't be derailing someone else's thread...

Quote
Using a real world analogy... it's putting a 9mm bullet into a .45cal.  I don't care how you spin it.  It's still only going to do as much damage as a 9mm.
Except that a .45 cartridge produces about 500 ft-lbs, a 9mm about 400. That extra energy transferred to the same bullet means more velocity.
As such, putting a 9mm into a .45 is a difference in the same sense as a .38 Special and .357 Magnum - the difference is the extra energy is gained by greater barrel volume rather than pressure. (Kinetic energy being the integral of the pressure times the volume swept.)

However, the intention is that the rounds are significantly sub-calibre. We're talking more like putting a .22 bullet into a .45. In rough terms, that would probably mean a .22 bullet doing healthily past 2500 fps - twice (or more) the speed either would do normally, so definitely going to have very different damage characteristics and ballistics to either a .22 bullet or a .45 bullet fired from its own calibre. A rough match might be something like the 5.7x28mm, except the .22/.45 is still doing a higher velocity than the P90 (and out of a barrel half the length!).

Quote
True, but saying this weapon subtracts 10 from the range modifier is the same as saying it grants you a plus 10 bonus to hit.
For that range band yes. But the effect of -10 range varies heavily with which range band. For range A, that's +20 at anything more than 10 yards. But for range F, it has zero effect until past twenty yards, and the effect is non-linear. For Range G, it often doesn't make a difference. For Range I, it often makes it worse*. This means that there's no single simplification.
The bonus is that through shifting range modifiers rather than adding accuracy modifiers, it gives the weapon the feeling of improved range rather than it nebulously being more accurate for some reason.

And modifying range is hardly something without precedent. (The rulebook version of) range finders did that already.

*While aren't currently any Range I weapons in the V5.2 armoury, it is due to reappear in V6, where I've been shaking up a lot of the range bands.

Quote
However I've seen snub nose revolvers literally "miss the side of a barn"!
And I can dig up cases where people hit targets with them at a hundred yards. We're starting from the assumption of an adequately manufactured weapon and ammunition. If you start talking about higher/lesser quality ammo or weapons... well, I have rules for that too.

Quote
It's a pistol for Pete's sake! How much more stability do you need? I would have no objections if the "suspensors" were on a large/heavy weapon.  And that isn't the issue here.  It's they were on a pistol.
Again, refer to: "...inevitable side-effect of lots of options that can combine in any number of ways... Not all of them are sensible or simple by everyone's yardstick."
And I will add that even if you do feel pistols are more stable, they don't actually have (m)any rules representing their "stability". Heavy weapons do get doubled move penalty (but that's really more representing their lack, as pistols aren't different to basic weapons in that fashion), and the optional weapon handling house rules I put in the RIA have some mild effect in that direction. Criticising it because pistols are already stable when the basic rules don't actually make them stable doesn't really work.

The matter of the Imperium's technology is that a lot of their high technology can vary between wild extremes. A personal forcefield might be built inside the tiniest flaws of a diamond set in a finger ring - or a huge backpack unit with a boiler, a full Walscherts valve mechanism, three flywheels, a few planetary gears and a big centrifugal governor on top. Still has the same end effect. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of pistol sized suspensors, even if only as relics of the Dark/Golden Age of Technology or the finest work of Mars alone.

Quote
I don't make light of the skills men and women have to develop so they can come home to their families.
I suspect the average serviceman, not to insult them, isn't good enough to deserve those skills. Over half of the guardsmen on the Inquisitor table will probably have neither skill, and are very unlikely to have both - and those guardsmen are drawn from a much larger pool than that of today's servicemen by far more demanding masters.

With that in mind, I have to say (with no offence intended) that I doubt that being a competition shooter, unless truly exceptional and likely with considerable "other experience", grants those skills. A reasonable BS, yes - but no better on the move than the other very highly skilled characters who still take the normal penalties.
Bear in mind that the combination means a character can be at a walk and still be successively firing on semi-auto more accurately than other characters could from a completely stationary position - or hitting targets accurately while bombing it along at half way to a sprint. These are not routine feats.

Quote
I would love to take you to a slaughter house sometime.  You would not only have a blast...
I'll stop you right there - I'm vegetarian. While I've shot and killed things in my time, they were all pests doing damage rather than animals specifically reared to be killed. But that's not the subject (or even a subject) for discussion here.

Quote
Yes, these weapons have daemons in them.
I feel you're focusing too much on the specific example. See also: Archaeotech, Binary Cortex, Cameleoline, Electro-grafts, Empath Field generator, Glavian Bio-circuitry, Nightsight, Psi-tracker, Telepathic beacon, etc.

And when I said "semantics", if you consider that there's equipment that modifies range penalties (Range Finder), I see no issue with one that modifies movement penalties, particularly seeing as it does it using recognisable, established rules.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Quickdraw McGraw on August 17, 2012, 03:10:59 PM
To move this discussion (http://www.the-conclave.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2093.msg28698#msg28698) somewhere where it won't be derailing someone else's thread...

Thank you for moving this.  I still want to discuss this more.  I may later have more questions about the RIA.  But I have to get back to work. So I'll make it quick.

Quote
Using a real world analogy... it's putting a 9mm bullet into a .45cal.  I don't care how you spin it.  It's still only going to do as much damage as a 9mm.
Quote
Except that a .45 cartridge produces about 500 ft-lbs, a 9mm about 400. That extra energy transferred to the same bullet means more velocity.
As such, putting a 9mm into a .45 is a difference in the same sense as a .38 Special and .357 Magnum - the difference is the extra energy is gained by greater barrel volume rather than pressure. (Kinetic energy being the integral of the pressure times the volume swept.)

However, the intention is that the rounds are significantly sub-calibre. We're talking more like putting a .22 bullet into a .45. In rough terms, that would probably mean a .22 bullet doing healthily past 2500 fps - twice (or more) the speed either would do normally, so definitely going to have very different damage characteristics and ballistics to either a .22 bullet or a .45 bullet fired from its own calibre. A rough match might be something like the 5.7x28mm, except the .22/.45 is still doing a higher velocity than the P90 (and out of a barrel half the length!).

 They essentially already did is a decade ago with the 357sig round.  It's a .40cal case crimped over a 9mm bullet.  Great ballistics on this round!  However, expensive and impractical and some settings.  Over penetration is always an issue.   I would like to point out and you're probably aware of this but velocity + mass is used to determine energy on ballistics gel test.  Having a "fast" bullet is simply not enough.  I believe the sub-cailiber rounds would coss less damage not give anyone a bonus to their ability to resist their effect.  The better accuracy or range as you say would apply.

I would also like to add what your describing is a .223.  It has been in use for 40 years on and off the battlefield.  However times are changing.  Not in my own words but the words of experts and service men it's not a one shot stopper!  More and more large caliber rifles are making there way into the battlefield.

I like the sub-caliber idea but I still believe it should have less damage for an improved range( compared to the original).  But its OK if you don't see it that way.  The most important thing I think here is balance.  If I just TRICKED out a gun that gave any average NPC antagonist with two eyes and half a brain all the ballistic skill sets.  It would be a ton of extra headaches for my players.  And they would most likely ask me not to GM the next game.  I would hope they would do the same for me.

Quote
However I've seen snub nose revolvers literally "miss the side of a barn"!
Quote
And I can dig up cases where people hit targets with them at a hundred yards. We're starting from the assumption of an adequately manufactured weapon and ammunition. If you start talking about higher/lesser quality ammo or weapons... well, I have rules for that.

Yes,I saw that last night.  Good work with that.

Quote
The matter of the Imperium's technology is that a lot of their high technology can vary between wild extremes. A personal forcefield might be built inside the tiniest flaws of a diamond set in a finger ring - or a huge backpack unit with a boiler, a full Walscherts valve mechanism, three flywheels, a few planetary gears and a big centrifugal governor on top. Still has the same end effect. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of pistol sized suspensors, even if only as relics of the Dark/Golden Age of Technology or the finest work of Mars alone.

This of course is all assumed, I agree.  That's why the writers of the rulebook included rarity of items.  Someone could essentially say that my blank has the ability to anticipate a shot and then engages reducing the mussel lift.  But that's what recoil dampners are for.

Quote
I would love to take you to a slaughter house sometime.  You would not only have a blast...
Quote
I'll stop you right there - I'm vegetarian. While I've shot and killed things in my time, they were all pests doing damage rather than animals specifically reared to be killed. But that's not the subject (or even a subject) for discussion here.

HAHA!  You miss understood me!  A "slaughter house" is slang for the fake houses that's what swat teams use to train and drill.  Popping up targets, moving through the dark, kicking in doors and all the while being time with drill instructor screaming at your back!

Quote
And when I said "semantics", if you consider that there's equipment that modifies range penalties (Range Finder), I see no issue with one that modifies movement penalties, particularly seeing as it does it using recognisable, established rules.

Yes, I can see this more clearly now.  But you have to remember that I have not read your RIA at this point.  When he posted these upgrades on a weapon with no background or a reason why the function so I was most inquisitive.  ;)

Josh
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 17, 2012, 05:28:02 PM
Quote
They essentially already did is a decade ago with the 357sig round.  It's a .40cal case crimped over a 9mm bullet.
The .357 SIG does actually appear in the Armoury. But this isn't quite the same principle, as it still uses a 9mm barrel. So really more of a 9mm magnum, not a sabot round.

Quote
I would like to point out and you're probably aware of this
I used to do consultancy work (and occasionally still do) for a company that built less-lethal gas launchers, so an understanding of internal, external and terminal ballistics was a very considerable part of that.
Admittedly I've not got much first hand experience with (intentionally) lethal ballistics, but I do understand the principles quite well.

Quote
I believe the sub-caliber rounds would cause less damage not give anyone a bonus to their ability to resist their effect.
They did cause -2 damage rather than Trivial(2) in version V5.1, but the issue was that a -2 damage modifier started to look quite unappealing on certain weapons, but usually more penalised the Armour Piercing mechanic than lethality on target.
A decently powerful weapon (say, the 3D6+X stats of some of the rifles) can easily still roll three injury levels of damage versus an average toughness character at a -2. And hit anything of AV 4 or more,  you're on level (or better) pegging with a full calibre round.
But with one of the less powerful weapons (the 2D6+X of some of the pistols), that can actually mean rolling 0 damage or getting your armour piercing round confidently stopped versus flak or mesh a lot of the time.

With the Trivial mechanic, you now need to roll 4 points more damage than a regular round to do three injury levels (instead of just having to overcome that -2), which is a far more significant effect on detracting from the damage the weapon can do than mere damage modifiers.

I'm considering modifying the Rending/Trivial mechanics so they also have an effect on system shock and/or injury total (probably by simply adding/subtracting the modifier from any injury total if damage is done after armour), but I also don't know whether I think that's a complication too many.

Quote
A "slaughter house" is slang for the fake houses that's what swat teams use to train and drill.
D'oh. I do actually know that (and was wondering what the hell kind of butchery you were talking about if guns were needed).

And yes, that might be quite interesting - if improbable.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Quickdraw McGraw on August 17, 2012, 10:12:44 PM
Quote
They essentially already did is a decade ago with the 357sig round.  It's a .40cal case crimped over a 9mm bullet.
Quote
The .357 SIG does actually appear in the Armoury. But this isn't quite the same principle, as it still uses a 9mm barrel. So really more of a 9mm magnum, not a sabot round.

Yes, I know they aren't sabot.  They're aren't too many examples to use. So i just used the 357sig and .223 as examples of small diamater bullets with insane velocity.

Quote
I'm considering modifying the Rending/Trivial mechanics so they also have an effect on system shock and/or injury total (probably by simply adding/subtracting the modifier from any injury total if damage is done after armour), but I also don't know whether I think that's a complication too many.

Ok, I see what you are trying to do.  You have done a great job putting this together. I know it's a community effort but your name is on it and I would like to see you rewarded for this hard work.  I hope it gets published somehow if not in a magazine then maybe a dark magenta PDF.  I do love all the extra details even if it slows the game down a bit. But its still feels very sticky.  The old rules had their flaws.  But most of us learned to deal with them.  Most of the newer guns have extra damage and with all the extra damage types it just complicates things.  Not to sound like I'm whining but now I have to concern myself with adding up and subtracting extra numbers.  I hope i don't forget something important.   :-\

Example:  My character is shot twice by the same weapon in the chest on a single action.  The other guys character thought it would be fun to alternate the rounds in the magazine( since we are being very detailed here).  I'm shot first by the sub-caliber stubber round.  He rolls...10.  I divide my armor by a 3rd( Light carapace 5 is now 3.) and subtract the rest from the damage caused.  Then I have to add to my chart the total damage as 7(my BIV is 6) but then I have to add 2 to my BIV and mark it as a light injury.  Next is the Manstopper stubber round...he rolls an 11! Six points make it through the armor.  I add another 6pts to my injury total.  Because it's rending I reduce my BIV by 1 and mark it as a heavy injury. 

Now I would have still been sitting on a heavy injury level any way.  However,  I had to do more calculations/steps this time and I had to look at the RIA 3 times to make sure I was adding it up right.  I could handle it though, but this can get confusing or you get so wrapped up in the moment you forget something.  Then just to complicate things you have 3 other characters engaging in battle all at the same time. 

I'm trying to think of a suggestion but I'm just too tired.  I'll think about this some more.  You pretty much have it all figured out.  It's just getting everyone to feel it's worth it to switch.  And I know you aren't bending anyone's arms behind their backs.

Quote
A "slaughter house" is slang for the fake houses that's what swat teams use to train and drill.
Quote
D'oh. I do actually know that (and was wondering what the hell kind of butchery you were talking about if guns were needed).
And yes, that might be quite interesting - if improbable.

This still brings a grin to my face just imagining what was going through your mind when you read this.   ;D

May ask for your permission to use some of the weapons and upgrades in the RIA?  Sure I don't agree with all of it but most of it I do.  I would like to play test it when and where I get the chance.

Thanks,
Josh
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 18, 2012, 12:51:57 AM
You have done a great job putting this together. I know it's a community effort but your name is on it and I would like to see you rewarded for this hard work.
I wouldn't really call it a community effort. Although I've obviously taken critique and suggestions along the way, it is still suggestions rather than actual entries. And, ultimately, it has only ever been me that decides what makes the cut.

Quote
I hope i don't forget something important.
It's a game. None of it is important!

I do know that adding rules is potentially complicated - but many characters have custom rules and equipment that a GM might not understand in advance.
The Revised Armoury has something of an advantage in how (surprisingly) successfully it has proliferated - it is something a lot of GMs know about and have read. The core of the "new rules" (as regards what will come up frequently in game) is covered on pages two and three, and that does then cover what (I think) is a decent majority of the non-rulebook weapons I've seen on character sheets (on the forums, at least) or used at events.

So not exactly a curve ball in the same way as a lot of custom material, particularly given the generous playtesting and revision it's had over the years.

Quote
I divide my armor by a 3rd( Light carapace 5 is now 3.)
Sabot rounds are actually Heavy AP, which halves armour (it's Light AP that takes off a third) - but as the reduction is rounded down (from 2.5 to 2), it would indeed be 3 points of armour.

Quote
Now I would have still been sitting on a heavy injury level any way.
I'd make it a serious injury in both cases, actually. In the RIA, one injury level from the sabot, plus two more from the Manstopper. The LRB would be two from the first shot and one from the later. In both cases, three injury levels, so Serious.

But I'd say it's an extreme example. I don't meet a lot of people who riffle shuffle several special ammo types into magazines (and wouldn't encourage doing it). About the only time I recall mixed magazines coming up in games is when characters decide to reload only partially empty shotguns with a different ammo type.

And, in any case, one would hope that the player had copied the pertinent details on their character sheet. (I hate it when players have to stop to look up their equipment/skills in the rulebook rather than having it on their character sheet.)

Quote
May ask for your permission to use some of the weapons and upgrades in the RIA?
I put it online so it can be used - so consider my permission automatic.

About the only thing I'd take issue with is someone trying to pass it off as their own work.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Quickdraw McGraw on August 18, 2012, 04:24:33 AM
And, ultimately, it has only ever been me that decides what makes the cut.

Well, good for you.  It must be exciting.  It's not having a baby exciting but its your baby.

Quote
I do know that adding rules is potentially complicated - but many characters have custom rules and equipment that a GM might not understand in advance.
The Revised Armoury has something of an advantage in how (surprisingly) successfully it has proliferated - it is something a lot of GMs know about and have read. The core of the "new rules" (as regards what will come up frequently in game) is covered on pages two and three, and that does then cover what (I think) is a decent majority of the non-rulebook weapons I've seen on character sheets (on the forums, at least) or used at events.

I'm not so sure about that.  Until now Eziah's the first person I've seen using them.  That's what cause this in the first place.  You thought I was "critiquing" your work.  Plus I've never used your Idea's I have my own thank you. 

Quote
I'd make it a serious injury in both cases, actually. In the RIA, one injury level from the sabot, plus two more from the Manstopper. The LRB would be two from the first shot and one from the later. In both cases, three injury levels, so Serious.

What is your point?  "I can't add."  The result was still the same. 

Quote
But I'd say it's an extreme example. I don't meet a lot of people who riffle shuffle several special ammo types into magazines (and wouldn't encourage doing it). About the only time I recall mixed magazines coming up in games is when characters decide to reload only partially empty shotguns with a different ammo type.

Yeah, well I do like to bring up extreme cases.  Sometimes looking at extreme cases you can discover the true integrity of a rule and sniff out the strange ways power gamers could abuse new rules.   

Quote
And, in any case, one would hope that the player had copied the pertinent details on their character sheet. (I hate it when players have to stop to look up their equipment/skills in the rulebook rather than having it on their character sheet.)

Yes me too.  I've played with some really unprepared people.  They show up and expect me to carry them though the game.  I have enough
complications in my life without more.  It's just a hobby and I like to keep it that way.

Quote
About the only thing I'd take issue with is someone trying to pass it off as their own work.

I would happen to agree but after all as you said...it's only a game.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 18, 2012, 03:28:40 PM
And, ultimately, it has only ever been me that decides what makes the cut.
Okay, this sounded more arrogant than I wanted. To rephrase, the RIA has had heavy community feedback, but I would think of it as primarily my own work.

I'm not so sure about that.  Until now Eziah's the first person I've seen using them.
As you've admitted disinterest in the RIA rules in the past, I think you've probably missed a lot of times when they've just appeared in low-key fashions, just weapon names on a character sheet.

Looking back at the nine different character threads (and deliberately excluding my own) from the first two pages of this forum that have used non-LRB weapons, six of them use guns directly from the RIA, number seven uses RIA ammo in an LRB weapon and number eight is a custom weapon that uses RIA rules.
That's actually not far off matching the number of threads in that same time period using LRB weapons.


Quote
What is your point?  "I can't add."  The result was still the same.
No point. Just making sure we're all on the right page.

But as to it being the same... um, it seems I made the same mistake as you did. The two aren't the same - I think we both forgot that the normal ammo would only do 5 damage after armour on the first shot (it's not AP), and thus will only do one injury level on both shots. There's also a difference of two injury total.

Even without the error, an example specifically chosen to have the same end result doesn't prove the difference moot in all cases. The special ammo rules are designed to not confer any overall advantage (being good in some areas, but bad in others), so yes, in certain cases, the results will be more or less the same.

So, to rework the example but with different armour and ammo types...

No armour:
2x Sabot: 4 levels, 21 injury
2x Manstopper: 5 levels, 21 injury.
Sabot + Manstopper: 5 levels, 21 injury.
2x Normal: 4 levels, 21 injury.

Flak armour:
2x Sabot: 3 levels, 17 injury
2x Manstopper: 4 levels, 15 injury.
Mixed: 3 levels, 16 injury.
2x Normal: 4 levels, 15 injury.

Light Carapace:
2x Sabot: 2 levels, 15 injury
2x Manstopper: 3 levels, 11 injury.
Mixed: 3 levels, 13 injury.
2x Normal: 2 levels, 11 injury.

Power Armour:
2x Sabot: 2 levels, 11 injury
2x Manstopper: 1 level, 1 injury.
Mixed: 2 levels, 6 injury.
2x Normal: 1 level, 1 injury.

The results do often quite heavily differ. The Sabot tends to be less good (other than point or two of injury total) until you start getting to pretty heavy armour - at that point, the phrase "hot knife through butter"then comes to mind.
Naturally, it appears that the Manstopper has an advantage here (always being at least as good as the normal round), but this example is ignoring its hit penalty. (And the Sabot's hit bonus.)

Quote
Yeah, well I do like to bring up extreme cases.
But they're fairly irrelevant - while they can happen but a word ("No") from the GM can bring them under control.
And it's a sandbox game. That the rules are not entirely robust in every case is not news.

Quote
I would happen to agree but after all as you said...it's only a game.
It might only be a game, but it would still be plagiarism - a matter I have no kind things to say about.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Quickdraw McGraw on August 18, 2012, 07:21:48 PM
Okay, this sounded more arrogant than I wanted. To rephrase, the RIA has had heavy community feedback, but I would think of it as primarily my own work.

As you've admitted disinterest in the RIA rules in the past, I think you've probably missed a lot of times when they've just appeared in low-key fashions, just weapon names on a character sheet.

It might only be a game, but it would still be plagiarism - a matter I have no kind things to say about.

1. Just a touch.  But we've all been guilty. 

2. This is true.  I'm a "if it's not broke don't fix it" kinda guy.  I don't play as much as I used to so I'm not too worried about revisions.  But I still model, paint, write and create characters in my spare time.  The last several years have been filled with GMing two different groups.  One plays Starwars RPG and the other Mouse Guard RPG.  There have been other games. But they were trial and my groups keep going back to these.  Anyhoo...

3. There's nothing I hate more than Liars and Thieves.   >:(


Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on August 18, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
2. This is true.  I'm a "if it's not broke don't fix it" kinda guy.
I have to say, as you seem to be something of a gun person, I'm a bit surprised some of what the RIA does isn't your cup of tea. Some people haven't been interested because to them one semi-automatic/revolver/assault rifle is much the same as any other, but I've found people with more interest in the subject usually like to see a less monotonous portrayal of firearms.

As for the "not broke" thing... well, opinions vary. The RIA started because there was about a bazillion threads asking how to do stats for a Desert Eagle Point Five Oh/.44 Magnum that would blow your head clean off/Callahan Fullbore Autolock with a customised trigger and double cartridge through gauge.
Quite a lot of people were unhappy with the narrow range of choices offered in the rulebook, and so I started the project... which has since got a bit out of hand.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Quickdraw McGraw on August 18, 2012, 10:27:26 PM
It's true I'm a gun guy.  But it's not really a big deal to me.  I open carried for few years in Kentucky.  Now I live in Florida and conceal carry( licensed of course).  I'm a big fan of doing things the right way.  I've been shooting since I was a wee babe.  It's a lot of fun but it's also a very serious matter.  I shoot well and can operate a new gun well in just a few minutes.  I was a little shocked the first time I fired a glock 18!  The full auto pistol jumped from the target to the ceiling in 5-6 shots( that's about one second)!  In less than an hour I was holding pattern( full auto) on center mass while slowing walking( only 4 steps and it emptied it's 33 rd mag)towards the target.  Please remember I'm not trying to be arrogant or proud.  I have no ambitions to become a great marksmen.  I do have aspirations to become a paramedic though.  I want to help people!  But my business over the last year has just exploded! I'm so busy I need to hire people.  But I fear as soon as I do  the business will slow down again.   :P  But enough of that.  :)

I'm not saying I don't like the RIA or find it useless.  That's not the case at all.  I kinda forgot about it.  I was making rules for my own weapons for years and got stuck in that mode, I guess. 

Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 08, 2012, 04:24:02 PM
Unfortunately it's not v6 yet, as I really haven't got the time to finish that at the moment, a lot of suggestions have been made regarding v5.2, so here's the v5.3 update - same link as before:

http://www.mediafire.com/?tmrdryt6eytxbho

Not entirely complete run down of changes...

- Formatting, big style. I've swapped most of the bullet point lists so they're not crammed half way across the page.
- Recoil rules. I've simplified the penalties they inflict on automatic fire.
- More standardisation of terminology:
>> I've put in "Thermal" damage to clearly mark out damage affected by ceramite armour.
>> Some of the other effects/weapons have been renamed to make them more fluff accurate or less similar to each other.
- Multiple hits from "shot" type weapons have also been standardised and simplified. The "wide" spray variants are now more accurate at short range.
- Lots of range band changes. Range A and E have been swapped in a lot of places, because I wasn't really happy with the way round I was using them.
- Anti-Materiel Rifles have been reined in, such that they might actually be feasible to use in a game without "OMG everyone is dead". (4D10+4, what was I thinking?)
- Lasgun magazine capacities have been brought back a lot, to make using them on full power constantly a little less of a no brainer.
- The high power mode of Plasma guns has been made a bit more ammo hungry and dangerous. I felt, like with lasguns, there wasn't enough reason not to use full power.
- Flame weapon capacities have changed. There's a draft set of rules for backpack tanks exploderising.

I've also left in a couple of the "blurb" passages in the revolver section. You can see what they're like, and probably why I'm not happy enough with them to consider V6 ready to come out - they're REALLY dry right now.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Koval on September 08, 2012, 05:22:48 PM
I personally didn't see much wrong with AMRs as they were -- they're far from being the sort of kit one carries around on a daily basis, unless your job is to shoot stuff from a mile away*. Perhaps 3D10 would've been a decent enough compromise there, or 2D10+X.

Aside from that, the only thing I'd really change is dropping the power on plasma pistols slightly (perhaps dropping them down to Dam 2D10+2?), in exchange for being usable when your target's more than ten yards away. :P

*I used to know a guy in the US military, courtesy of a gaming forum I used to frequent. Apparently, he had plenty of experience of using a Barrett M82 in Afghanistan. Take that one as you will, particularly since I think he's full of hot air, but it does make sense that if you knew you were going to be using such a thing, you'd have to park yourself pretty far away and, for want of a better expression, make yourself comfortable.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 08, 2012, 06:36:50 PM
The AMRs... part of it was I didn't really feel they were appropriately comparable to bolters, which also fire large high velocity projectiles - that also happen to explode.
Outclassing plasma weapons didn't really make sense either.

They do actually still make pretty even ground with things like 3D10, 2D10+4 or such, particularly if combined with some of their special ammunition variants, so still have a very respectable chance of putting armoured targets out of action with system shock.
Better than giving its targets absolutely zero chance, given the damage stat is only likely to come into play when attacking player characters (if the GM needs to attack an NPC, he can either make them suitably tough, or just use his omnipotence to decide how it turns out).

However, a fair point about the Plasma Pistol. It is a little inaccurate (however, that's not dissimilar to the rulebook).
Not that sold on 2D10+2 though, as that'd actually make it less damaging than a bolt pistol. In an ideal world, I'd probably go with 3D8 or something, but D8s aren't used in Inquisitor... so, I've made it 3D10-2 for the moment.

With that in mind, V5.3.1 is now available at the previous link.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 08, 2012, 08:58:45 PM
Hmm. Looking at the probabilities, I think I might actually prefer 5D6-2 for plasma pistol damage. Well, not too vital right now.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Cortez on September 08, 2012, 10:57:43 PM
I've always felt Inquisitor unnecessarily hamstrings itself by only using d6s and d10s. Using some of the other dice types would open up far more options for different weapon and ammunition types, and the dice aren't exactly hard to get hold of.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 09, 2012, 12:33:23 AM
The limited range of dice is a little inconvenient, but not actually quite as awkward as it might seem at first glance. In any case, I stuck to the D6/D10 system for the sake of there not being any additional barrier to using the RIA.

At present, the RIA in theory demands up to (currently) 12 dice to roll any weapon damage in one. Six of each of D6s (e.g. Heavy Bolter) and D10s (e.g. High power Plasma guns).

If I started introducing D8s, D12s or D20s* into the mix, even if it has some minor probability benefits, it could add a lot of extra dice to take to any game.
*D4s can get stuffed though, as they're a) unrollable and b) caltrops. Those of you that have seen my dice collection at events may have seen a 12 sided D4 (http://www.thediceshoponline.com/dice/1015/Chessex-Urban-Camo-Roman-12-Sided-D4), which is the only one I ever use. (I do have a couple of tetrahedral D4s, but they always stay in the dice bags/boxes.)

I have occasionally considered using the D5 as well as the D3, but the D5 and D6 aren't actually different enough to be worth complicating things.

That said, I do often use dice other than the D3, D6 and D10 for my own special rules.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Quickdraw McGraw on September 09, 2012, 05:33:37 PM
I finished reading the v5-3-1.  Overall very good.  Most of the weapons are balanced between a pro and con.  I like that!  If I want to use BMF gun then I'd better be prepared to deal with the flaws.  I know earlier revisions had that, but a few tweaks a long the way can make a big difference.

 I have a question and suggestion for you to Marco to consider. 

1.  Why no Imperial gauss technology?  Copying the gauss flayer isn't a great idea to me.  I'm sure the tech priest of Mars have and therefore it must exist.  But why not Gauss rifles?  Of course its still in it's experimental stages in the US military and possibly others.  I've seen video of demonstrations on tanks.  WOW!  Now if they can miniaturize that. And like you said in the beginning of the revision.  Just because Y exists doesn't mean it does in 41M.  Or something to that effect.  :)

On that tangent, It could be that its not economically efficient to supply the imperial armies of the 41M with them.  They consume great amounts of energy and they fire ballistic ammo.  Its much more cost effective to supply an army with either ballistic or energy weapons.  But the ocasional high end sniper may use it.  Of coarse with so many other weapon types it my have been cast a side.  Anyway after saying all that have you thought about adding one?

2.  The reflex scope/sights.  It seems to be missing one of it's best qualities. I have fired pistols and carbines with reflex sights and the greatest advantage I can recall is when I was aiming, I still had great awareness of everything around me.  I mean to say when I look through a "scope" I have tunnel vision.  This isn't the case with a red dot reflex sight.  When using a scope in the game you are only aware of the target and anything 2 yards around from it.  The red dot reflex isn't magnified so it has less use at distance but I think that 2 yard rule shouldn't apply.  Maybe just increasing it to 4, 6 or 10 yards will work?  Any thoughts?
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Koval on September 09, 2012, 06:16:46 PM
Why no Imperial gauss technology?  Copying the gauss flayer isn't a great idea to me.  I'm sure the tech priest of Mars have and therefore it must exist.  But why not Gauss rifles?  Of course its still in it's experimental stages in the US military and possibly others.
Just to clear up potential confusion while trying to avoid looking like I'm having a go, the "gauss weapons" we see Necrons using employ molecular disassembly beams, and the Imperium already has lasguns and bolters. While I can see electromagnetic propulsion being employed on larger platforms*, it's not going to replace las weapons any time soon for general use (in no small part because las weaponry is not only more advanced -- it's a directed-energy weapon, after all -- but also relatively easy to build, reliable, and efficient).


*While these example require particularly extreme values of "large", I can readily imagine spaceship weaponry using electromagnetic propulsion all the time. On an even more extreme level, nova cannons use what is basically the gravity-bending version to achieve stupidly high velocities. Unfortunately, this leads into Sir Isaac Newton being the deadliest son of a bitch in space (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLpgxry542M), as bringing a nova cannon to an Inquisitor game would amount to turning the table, and probably everything within a couple of thousand miles as well, into a giant fireball.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 09, 2012, 06:25:23 PM
Copying the gauss flayer isn't a great idea to me.
It's a fairly common fan interpretation that the Gauss flayer in the rulebook is an inferior Imperial copy, seeing as how it's actually entirely rubbish. (In the WH40k rules, at least, they more dangerous weapons than bolters.) I've kept to that for the moment. Full on Necron weapons will probably appear in future.

Quote
But why not Gauss rifles?  Of course its still in it's experimental stages in the US military and possibly others.
Coil guns - a term I shall use to avoid confusion with what Gauss normally means in 40k - are a potential concept and indeed I actually have a character that uses one. However, I've never imagined they'd be in any way common in the Imperium, seeing as the technology has very little benefit when compared to lasguns.

I played off the idea that they might capitalise on the fact that magnetics are inaudible, unlike the apparent crack of a lasgun displacing heated air, but the bonus would necessitate a sub-sonic projectile (rather than the hypersonics normally associated with magnetic weaponry in sci-fi).

Quote
Now if they can miniaturize that.
As regards my occasional vocation to assist with firearms design, I've actually got a heap of notes (some of which might even be worth becoming a patent application) regarding this subject.

I've actually got designs that could be done with civilian budgets and technology that would approximate a .40 S&W or .45 ACP carbine in all but weight (It's sort of the old adage about "pick two" with performance, cost and weight having to play against each other) and noise (of which there wouldn't be a lot).

Quote
When using a scope in the game you are only aware of the target and anything 2 yards around from it.
Actually, I have to be honest and say that I'd forgotten that rule even existed. The games I play usually treat the entire awareness section as guidelines rather than actual rules.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Quickdraw McGraw on September 10, 2012, 04:15:27 AM
@ Koval-  Sorry, I don't want you to think I'm mocking you...but did you even read the second paragraph of my post?  If you did( of coarse you didn't have to) you would have seen I had already answered why I felt it would never be adopted or mass produced for the Imperial army.  And yes I understand how Flayers work in principal.  I have always called magnetic coil guns: Gauss weaponry long before Necrons even existed.  Thanks to Rifts and Battletech.   ;)   Sorry for that miss understanding.

@ Marco-

It's a fairly common fan interpretation that the Gauss flayer in the rulebook is an inferior Imperial copy, seeing as how it's actually entirely rubbish. (In the WH40k rules, at least, they more dangerous weapons than bolters.) I've kept to that for the moment. Full on Necron weapons will probably appear in future.

I didn't even draw a connection between folks thinking the gauss flayer in the Inquisitor book was a inferior imperial made one.  I should have known, but I've always thought it was lacking something too.  The psychological fear factor of seeing your comrade's face stripped to the bone right before you.  Other than Pysker abilites, grenades and monsters do you even see this coming into play.  Psychological warfare on the battlefield shouldn't be ignored.  You just might not need to fire that second shot if the enemy has turned heels and running for their lives.

However, I've never imagined they'd be in any way common in the Imperium, seeing as the technology has very little benefit when compared to lasguns.

Oh, I agree.  I wasn't asking for anyone to arm their armies with them.  They do have a niche i believe that could excel pass lasguns but at what cost?

I played off the idea that they might capitalise on the fact that magnetics are inaudible, unlike the apparent crack of a lasgun displacing heated air, but the bonus would necessitate a sub-sonic projectile (rather than the hypersonics normally associated with magnetic weaponry in sci-fi at some point.

The first time I ever saw a video of this technology in action was a tank fitted with a "electromagnetic cannon" in the desert firing at a sealed steel box full of chickens!  The box was as thick as med. tank armor and with a dozen chickens in it.  Not only did the solid tank round pierce and exit the steel box( leaving it intact too), it created a vacuum sucking out all the chicken across the desert.  All they could find of the chickens was a single feather!

Yes, I believe the Magnetics are inaudible, a rifle maybe a little bulky, maybe slow to recharge but most likely armor piercing and accurate at long ranges.   Not really for everyone but a sniper of the future may consider it?

Actually, I have to be honest and say that I'd forgotten that rule even existed. The games I play usually treat the entire awareness section as guidelines rather than actual rules.

Ha ha, It's not used much I'm sure.  A shame really the awareness section adds a little more realism.  But on a fun note, I do remember in a game were someone spend a turn or two overwatching an alleyway through their infrascope.  And an enemy character approached close enough behind cover to attack from the 2o'clock position while the sniper lay on the ground!  The GM placed penalties to the sniper's hearing( an open face helmet w/no auto senses) and to sight because of his focus on the alleyway.  Short answer the sniper failed...

I hope this helps.  You could just dismiss it if you please but as I said I would be having a closer look at your revisions and helping where I could.

Have a great day!
Josh
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Koval on September 10, 2012, 06:42:24 AM
@ Koval-  Sorry, I don't want you to think I'm mocking you...but did you even read the second paragraph of my post? 
I did indeed. Hence "potential confusion" in case it confused anyone else, rather than simply "confusion" or "possible confusion" which would've implied you were the confused one.

In any case I'm still not entirely sure the Imperium would bother when they've got more advanced weaponry available (and aren't afraid to use it)
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: N01H3r3 on September 10, 2012, 11:08:13 AM
On the subject of coilguns and similar technology, I included a weapon upgrade in the Rogue Trader sourcebook Hostile Acquisitions called Mag-Lev Impellor, that basically represented this sort of weaponry (increased damage, increased range, increased reload time as you have to change a power supply as well as refilling or replacing the magazine). I left most of the details vague, but made it clear that the Adeptus Mechanicus don't like outsiders dabbling with the technology. It was approved by GW's IP guys, and mention of similar technologies in regards to starship weaponry (the Nova Cannon is one such example, but far from the only one) suggests that the Imperium has access to such devices, though they're not widely-employed for whatever reason.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 10, 2012, 11:59:33 AM
Oh, I agree.  I wasn't asking for anyone to arm their armies with them.  They do have a niche i believe that could excel pass lasguns but at what cost?
I'll look into the concept, but don't expect it to appear in any huge rush.

Quote
Ha ha, It's not used much I'm sure.  A shame really the awareness section adds a little more realism.
That's not to say that the concepts aren't used, but that they're used in a looser fashion. It's more like: "You're wearing a helmet, you're aiming at someone else and this guy is coming in from the side... so we'll call that a -60 to see him."

However, I'll see if I can work something out in any case.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Quickdraw McGraw on September 10, 2012, 02:09:03 PM
@Koval- Thanks for the help.   ;D. Writings can be at times such an inefficient way to communicate.  And I'm no exception.   ;)

@No1h3r3-  Thanks for that info!   :)  I would love to play Dark Heresy but my Rpg groups find it too grimm.  Oh, well.  :-\

@Marco- No worries. There's no rush.  I really was just asking when I saw the Gauss flayer.  I thought... "Where's the Electromagnetic coil guns?"

Have a great day!
Josh
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Koval on September 10, 2012, 06:17:42 PM
though they're not widely-employed for whatever reason.
I imagine they'd really only see mainstream use when they're literally the most efficient option, for example when you want to get a cruiser's macrobatteries working (because, as far as I understand these things, you're not going to fling several hundred tonnes of ordnance out across the void using only conventional methods unless you want to play hell with your own gun)

I would love to play Dark Heresy but my Rpg groups find it too grimm.  Oh, well.  :-\
I admit the timing may not be the most ideal arrangement, but a few of us on the 'Clave run DH (and Rogue Trader) over Skype. Probably worth floating past whoever's running the sessions.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Quickdraw McGraw on September 10, 2012, 06:45:49 PM
I admit the timing may not be the most ideal arrangement, but a few of us on the 'Clave run DH (and Rogue Trader) over Skype. Probably worth floating past whoever's running the sessions.
OK, thanks!  I wouldn't want to impose though. I would most likely just be happy to play an NPC for a session just to see if I like it. 

Josh
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Quickdraw McGraw on September 11, 2012, 08:23:49 PM
Marco- Any thoughts on weapons and bionic replacements?  I mean for example;  A character has a bionic hand replacement utilizing one of your new Las pistol revisions. What would the enc value be? Without a stock/grip and trigger assembly would it be -10, -20 or -25% off the total value?  What about heavier weapons?  Would recoil differ now that the elbow joint takes the brunt of the force rather than the tiny wrist bone in comparison? 

Sorry about all the odd questions but that's how my abby-normal brain works.  ;D
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Koval on September 11, 2012, 08:29:21 PM
I don't think Marco's put much thought into implanted weapon systems, to be honest, probably because actually having hands makes more sense than having a Type 1 Arm Cannon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArmCannon) unless you're a servitor. :P
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Quickdraw McGraw on September 11, 2012, 09:37:07 PM
HaHa True, true.  I'm working up character with a complete bionic arm with a Las rifle attached.  I was going to just rule a -20% enc off the total value.  Sound fair?
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 11, 2012, 10:04:28 PM
It depends on the circumstance, but I would normally take implanted weapons to have no Encumbrance.
It's basically bionics at that point, which don't have their own encumbrance - I would imagine that the mechanical strength and mechanisms offset the weight of the weapon.

As long as the arm is strong enough and that strength isn't affected, it's little difference anyway - while losing strength is not that uncommon, a Serious arm injury halves WS and BS anyway. Seems fair in the long run that the implantation has some benefits.

As for recoil, I'd say it's very up to players and the specific case. It's not like recoil is automatically changed by a character having a brutally strong bionic wrist or something.

Silva Birgen might be S95 after bionics, but she still treats weapons the same as everyone else. (I have to remember Spring '10 where PrecinctOmega decided she was losing her aim for firing on single because "It's a shotgun", my protests of "She's S95 for Throne's sake" going unheeded).
On the other hand (somewhat literally), Gala's bionic arm (even if weaker) does have a built in recoil glove (reducing recoil levels by one), so she does take less recoil. Not that it's all that much normally, as her main weapon is already a lascarbine.

I'll think about neatening the above as some notes on the matter, but as Koval guesses, it's not my main focus. Most of my characters prefer having hands, so I only have the one character with complete replacements (which aren't guns, in any case).
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Quickdraw McGraw on September 11, 2012, 10:14:56 PM
Thanks, that actually answers several of my questions. :)

Edit:  In spite of the odd questions I've been thinking of my tech priest war band( still building the mutant one).  I was working on a skitarii construct with a multi-laser arm.  I'm just spit-balling around a few ideas.  But I wanted to ask anyways.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 14, 2012, 10:52:25 AM
Updated to V5.3.2: http://www.mediafire.com/?tmrdryt6eytxbho

I've changed the damage on Plasma Pistols & AMRs, and corrected the reload stat of the Hellpistol in the "complete" profiles. (Should have been [2] not 4. The latter was a hang-over from V5.1 and its definition of the reload stats)
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Radu Lykan on November 05, 2012, 12:21:32 PM
as someone with a lot more knowledge on fire arms than me i was wondering if you had seen skyfall yet? the twin drum mag machine pistol used at the beginning, how would you stat it? i have an inquisitor planned who uses an auto pistol but after seeing the pistol in skyfall i am tempted to have the auto pistol resemble it just for rule of cool
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on November 05, 2012, 09:47:59 PM
I haven't seen Skyfall, but it sounds like you're probably talking about a Glock 18 (or possibly a converted Glock 17) with a Beta C-Mag.

Something like this (although this is not the Glock 18, but the Glock 34 - visually similar, but it's a semi-auto competition version of the Glock 17, not the select fire variant):
(http://www.impactguns.com/Data/Default/Images/uploads/beta/beta_glock.jpg)

The Glock 18 is actually already the basis for the Light Machine Pistol in the armoury. From there, I'd just say stick a drum mag upgrade on it. If you want to get more representative, apply the same increase in ammo & Enc again. (And by that point, you might as well just round off those 96 rounds to the full 100 of a C-Mag.)

The DM upgrade isn't an option listed for the Light Machine Pistol in the RIA, but as the FAQ says, the rules are mutable.

To elaborate on why it's not listed, it's two things.

1) Suggesting putting a drum magazine on a Full(16) weapon that can be dual wielded, no matter how cool that would be, is basically recommending a total mess for GMs. Sorry, just gotta roll 32 dice and keep track of whether these things jam...

I am developing a house version of the full auto rules that tries to a) speed them up and b) make things more realistic - and thus avoid such a mess, but it's far from done yet. And I can't guarantee anyone would want to use them anyway.
(There is also a house version of flame weapon rules in the mix.)

2) Because I honestly don't know how I want to represent an "official" version of pistol drum mags. In reality, such things are just plain gimmick, and far from practical.

Sticking a drum magazine on a pistol stops it from being sensibly holstered, but pistols still can't be easily put on a sling like a longarm - so actually storing it about your person is a challenge. As such, the only sensible way I can actually see to use a pistol Beta C would be carry the pistol loaded with a regular magazine, then swap in a separately stored Beta C on a reload.
It still cancels out the weight and manoeuvrability advantages of pistols though, and adds the reliability problems most drum mags share (as well as making a lot of stoppages harder to clear) - which still makes it very questionable.

Cool - definitely. Practical - no. And as the RIA tries to go beyond just "Rule of Cool" and instead offer characterful drawbacks to weapons, it's not easy to address.

~~~~~

That's really an unnecessarily long answer, but there you go...
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Radu Lykan on November 05, 2012, 10:56:10 PM
That's really an unnecessarily long answer

but appreciated, thanks
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Drubbels on December 30, 2012, 05:23:20 PM
Hey Marco, just read through the armoury. Looks very good, but there are 2 things I'd like to bring up:

-Fused: if I understand the rule correctly, this represents ammunition that is primed for detonation on impact, and might therefore accidentally trigger and detonate on contact with cover that would only slow non-explosive ammunition, correct? If this is indeed the case, I don't understand the reasoning behind the current effect all that well: a boltgun shot that hits a sheet of metal, for instance, would either detonate there (and thus have no effect*) or not (and thus not be affected at all in any way that normal ammunition isn't). Instead, I would like to suggest that you roll a D10 or D6 (most likely a D10) when Fused ammunition hits cover. If this is greater than the cover value, than there is no special effect, but if this is less than or equal to the cover value, than the shot detonates immediately and only damages the cover.

-I can't seem to spot any heavy las weapons. Is this intentional? A lascannon would of course be far too powerful to use in a normal game, but for completeness there should probably be rules for one. Are you planning on adding any lascannons, multilasers...?


Aside from that, I'd also like to ask whether you had perhaps considered adding rules for how firearms (mal)function underwater, in vacuum or even in low or high pressure atmospheres. Any thoughts on how to represent such effects ruleswise?

*Other than perhaps a cover-damaging effect
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on December 31, 2012, 01:59:53 AM
-Fused: if I understand the rule correctly, this represents ammunition that is primed for detonation on impact, and might therefore accidentally trigger and detonate on contact with cover that would only slow non-explosive ammunition, correct?
Mostly, yes. It does also apply to other projectiles such as Hellfire (which shatters on impact), Metal Storm (which fragments before impact), Inferno (which disgorges its promethium gel - although apparently I've applied this only to Bolters, not shotguns) and Plasma (where the magnetic containment is likely to be disrupted).

The reasoning behind the effect is basically the same as how armour works in other cases. The easy example is open vs closed helms. An open helm isn't a chance of getting shot in the unprotected face, it's just a reduction of the overall AV conferred to the location to represent the reduction in protection.

With that precedent, it seems reasonable that an increased chance of a projectile being stopped by cover is simply represented by increasing the cover's AV. (And which fits into the current damage mechanics better than introducing saving throws into the mix).

Quote
I can't seem to spot any heavy las weapons. Is this intentional?
Yes and no.

No, in that the intent is to have heavy lasweapons. Yes, in that I don't feel I've got rules I'm happy with yet.

Quote
Aside from that, I'd also like to ask whether you had perhaps considered adding rules for how firearms (mal)function underwater, in vacuum or even in low or high pressure atmospheres. Any thoughts on how to represent such effects rules wise?
Not as of yet, but these are interesting ideas.

However, I suspect that things would have to be guidelines rather than actual rules, because the effects of these different things would be different per weapon. An underwater plasma gun would obviously be a lot more life threatening for its user than an underwater needle pistol.

Underwater, I'd say you're looking at a lot of cover. Realistically, probably about AV 4-5 per foot of water, but if you want a more movie interpretation, maybe AV 2-3 per yard.
Solid projectile weapons gain Jam-Prone (x2), Thermal weapons outright fail to work (either due to lack of oxygen or the risk of boiling their user alive), Lasweapons... I'm going to go out on a limb and say it'd have no additional effects. Although you could argue they'd short, the Imperial Guard would be in trouble if lasguns gave up in the wet, so I imagine they're functionally water tight.

Vacuum. Well, contrary to popular belief about space being cold, the main issue is overheating due to loss of convection. I once approximated the maths for firing an M-16 with only radiative heat loss, which worked out as limiting it to a sustained rate of about 5-10 rounds per minute before you'd start overheating the barrel.
But that is a sustained rate - transiently, you could probably fire about two or three magazines without damage (although it would probably get hot enough to cook rounds off in the chamber in the process), as long as you then left it to cool for half an hour before doing it again. Given the number of shots fired in the average Inquisitor game, most firearms in the RIA wouldn't overheat during a typical game.

However, for the sake of doing something interesting, I'd suggest Jam prone for almost all weapons - lasguns included, but things like crossbows excluded.
All range modifiers are reduced by 5 yards (as there's no air to slow projectiles, or to throw them off course).
Standard flamers wouldn't work (you'd need to supply oxidisers somehow, and obviously there's no secondary damage through setting other materials on fire) and plasma guns probably would overheat. (So would probably have their hazard ratings doubled.)

Mind you, I don't see many Inquisitor games in vacuum.

Low or high pressure: Unless you're talking about pressures dangerous to humans, there's probably not a significant difference. But changes in oxygen levels might however affect flammability. I'd say in high pressure, re-roll failed rolls for things catching fire. Low pressure, re-roll successful rolls. (I wouldn't change the chances of extinguishing fires, however.)
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Drubbels on January 03, 2013, 02:46:03 PM
Thank you Marco.

I do see the reasoning behind Fused, but I have to say that it still feels a little odd. At least for bolt rounds and such; the current version fits perfectly for plasma weapons.

Thanks for all the special environment rules. And I've never had any games in vacuum yet either, but it always pays to be prepared. And I am planning on at least two (partly) underwater games sometime in the future, so those rules really come in handy. Have you considered including them in the next version of the RIA?

And thanks for all the work you put into projects like this. It's really great.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Koval on January 03, 2013, 06:20:57 PM
I do see the reasoning behind Fused, but I have to say that it still feels a little odd. At least for bolt rounds and such; the current version fits perfectly for plasma weapons.
Bolter shells are generally explosive, remember, so what comes hurtling towards you after it hits cover isn't so much a bolter shell as a mini fireball and a hail of shrapnel (which will still cause an awful lot of damage; remember that if an exploding thing is moving, that explosion will still be moving after the thing explodes)
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on January 03, 2013, 06:53:06 PM
I do see the reasoning behind Fused, but I have to say that it still feels a little odd. At least for bolt rounds and such; the current version fits perfectly for plasma weapons.
Koval's response pretty much put how I see it into words. There is shrapnel and debris involved, so many targets behind cover would get hit by something.

Keeping it as one "universal" effect that can apply reasonably widely is weighted by one of the main criticisms of the Revised Armoury being that it already adds loads of extra rules and effects.
Sometimes this does make things less than perfect in individual cases, but given how many characteristics the RIA already adds, trying to add lots of different rules to cover minor differences in how "spaced armour" (of a sort) might affect projectiles isn't hugely productive.

And as I often say, I abstract many rules. Sure, the exact sequence sometimes might not be realistic... but if the end result works and the rules are simple, so that's the main thing.

Quote
Have you considered including them in the next version of the RIA?
Already got some notes in my WIP file.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Drubbels on January 04, 2013, 11:45:14 PM
Ah yes, I understand. Never really thought about that. Also, I was wondering about the 'ignores armour of 4 points or less' rules: are these intended as AV 6 counts as 2 (as web and bolas weapon strangling in the LRB) or as AV 6 counts as 6 (as when this rule is applied literally)?
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on January 05, 2013, 12:31:08 AM
Also, I was wondering about the 'ignores armour of 4 points or less' rules
It's deliberately written as such - the intention is that AV 4 or less is ignored, AV 5 or more is unaffected.

Thing is, I always found the LRB's wording ambiguous. I saw it as I describe above, but not everyone agreed.
To me, if the intention had been to reduce all armour by four points, the words "up to" didn't need to be in there. (Or at the very least, other cases, such as Diamond Hard Claws, use "ignores the first X points of armour" instead.)

My reasoning for doing it as such is the split at AV 4 to AV 5 tends to delineate a difference between soft and hard armours, and thus the way forces are passed to the body.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Drubbels on January 06, 2013, 09:36:44 AM
Just a random idea, but had you considered adding some kind of psyker/daemon-finding gunsight?
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on June 21, 2013, 04:49:39 PM
Howdy chaps.

Here's the Beta version of v5-4 of the Revised Inquisitor Armoury. (http://www.mediafire.com/download/otqbbsoc8kg107f/)

It adds lots of grenades/warheads/munitions/associated launchers and a suggested alteration to the Flame Weapon rules, but most of the rest is errata:

> The Plasma weapon special rules have been simplified (halving the word count) in the process.
> A few of the shotgun shells have been changed around (there's been a big simplification on bean-bags... which, oddly, are now the only Rending(3) weapon currently on the list!)
> Slight adjustments to the Neural shredder, a more in-depth change to the Graviton gun and Longbow.
> And slightly more of the background sections now exist, if with some placeholders in there.

If you do look over the explosives section, you'll find that most of the grenades have had their blast values heavily reduced in exchange for special damage types.

Some of these are still pretty experimental, but the hope is that these are actually less time consuming (and less horrifically lethal) in play than rolling and calculating damage for half a dozen or more hits.

For example, the difference between the old and new krak grenade brings the average damage (before armour) down to ~40.3, rather than 63. It's probably still going to put lightly armoured targets out of the game, but they might get lucky (or maybe leave something behind to patch up!) - however, armour only applying to this three times rather than six means that it doesn't lose effectiveness there.

If you see any glaring mistakes (of which there are doubtless a few), do tell me.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Gilleon on July 16, 2013, 09:11:59 AM
Nice work as always Marco. Everything looks good to me so far, one thing I had noticed (and was carried over from the previous version) was that some of the Lasgun weight values seem a bit off. The Catachan Lascarbine I think should be 5 weight lighter, and the Long rifle and Hellgun should be 5 weight more. I could be wrong though.

As I said before though, nice work.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Koval on July 16, 2013, 06:34:56 PM
As I have done before, I must protest that there is no such thing as a "Mk4 Catachan Lascarbine". Lexicanum succeeded in horribly misquoting the source they were "referencing". The only thing tying it to Catachan is that it's used by loads of Guardsmen hailing from that world. Catachan, in any case, is not known for its manufactora.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on July 16, 2013, 10:33:36 PM
The Catachan Lascarbine I think should be 5 weight lighter, and the Long rifle and Hellgun should be 5 weight more. I could be wrong though.
Not quite entirely right, as it turns out. The long-las turned out to be 10 points short.

The only thing tying it to Catachan is that it's used by loads of Guardsmen hailing from that world.
Can't say that's strictly a reason against it - Stilton cheese can't be made in Stilton and Robert Bunsen didn't invent the Bunsen burner. :P

Still, renamed.

V5.4.1 is now available at the same link (http://www.mediafire.com/download/otqbbsoc8kg107f/).
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Koval on July 17, 2013, 06:40:31 AM
The only thing tying it to Catachan is that it's used by loads of Guardsmen hailing from that world.
Can't say that's strictly a reason against it - Stilton cheese can't be made in Stilton and Robert Bunsen didn't invent the Bunsen burner. :P
But surely the fact that there are no sources supporting it ought to provide some indication :P
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Gilleon on July 17, 2013, 07:33:23 AM
I hate to nit-pick... but are you sure? Heavy stock (10), long las barrel (10) and standard frame (25). I didn't think any of the other parts added weight.

On a more positive note, the more explicit descriptions of the reload types is a very nice addition.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on July 17, 2013, 01:39:07 PM
... right, apparently the Stealth muzzle is not added by default. Arse.

v5.4.2 it is then.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Gilleon on July 17, 2013, 10:01:07 PM
I genuinely feel bad now  :-\
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on July 17, 2013, 11:10:15 PM
Err... why?

Not a problem. Just turns out I don't have as good a memory of what I've written as I sometimes think...
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Gilleon on July 18, 2013, 03:24:04 AM
I just felt guilty for pointing out a mistake *just after* you had completed the latest addition, and not before.

After a quick look over the new rules for explosives, I must say i quite like them, as you say simplified considerably.

And, simply out of curiosity, had you thought of writing rules for the conversion beamer? From what I've seen there's only one very old (and horrifically dangerous) set of rules floating about in the ether, and I know I'm (probably) not up to the task of doing a good job of them myself.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Draco Ferox on August 31, 2013, 10:51:25 PM
I just felt guilty for pointing out a mistake *just after* you had completed the latest addition, and not before.

I wouldn't. He's still improving it (are you ever going to finish it? :P) and I'm sure anything you can point out can be included in the next edition. What's important is that you caught it, so he can fix it, rather than just looking at it and thinking "huh, that's funny" and then leaving it alone.

And, simply out of curiosity, had you thought of writing rules for the conversion beamer? From what I've seen there's only one very old (and horrifically dangerous) set of rules floating about in the ether, and I know I'm (probably) not up to the task of doing a good job of them myself.

The conversion beamer, being a very rare techno-arcana weapon almost unique to the tech-priests (I don't agree with space marines gettting them) would be almost  impossible to get your hands on. They should be devastating, given that they're a weapon from the golden age of humanity, but the average character tech-priest is likely to break it rather than manage to do anything with it.

I've just had a look over the newest rules, and I like them. Of course, every time you release a new version, I have to go through my characters and update all of their weaponry. I don't mind it, and it's fun getting to tweak their equipment each time, but there's always that learning period when one of the rules for the weapons are changed.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 01, 2013, 01:25:40 AM
On the note of the conversion beamer, I would certainly agree with Draco that it's the kind of thing that really doesn't have much place in the Inquisitor game.

In terms of the fluff for the conversion beam projector - that being the conversion of a portion of the target's matter to energy - the rules for it should really be approximately "everything on the table dies". To explain...

The conversion of a single gram of matter to pure energy has an TNT equivalent of 21.439 kilotonnes. Pushing some numbers...

The overpressure would kill pretty much every human within about 3/4 of a kilometre stone dead (and still kill a lot more further than that), flatten every building for two kilometres; radiation would probably be fatal out to a kilometre and a half; about two and a half kilometres away, anyone who'd had direct line of sight would probably have received fatal 3rd or 4th degree burns; plus, the fireball would comfortably be the size of a football pitch and vaporise anything in the area immediately.

Basically, convert a single gram of matter to energy, and everything within half a mile is dead in seconds, most things within a mile will be dead in hours, and many things within a mile and a half will be dead in days.

How much is a gram? Well, a beam 3mm across would comfortably meet with that much matter on the way through a human torso... or not much more than about a hundred metres of clear air. A much narrower beam, a mere thousandth of a millimetre wide, would reduce the energy released when hitting a torso to "only" equivalent to 3 kilos of TNT - but that's still easily enough to be instantly fatal to the sap hit by it.
Ignoring the problems with a beam based total conversion weapon in the first place, their rules in Inquisitor might as well be insta-kills. If included, I think they should be more plot devices than actual equipment.

~~~~~

I have written some fairly powerful weapons this far though; the nastiest was probably a Wraithcannon - where I outright skipped over giving it a damage stat and had it directly deal injury levels, ignoring toughness and armour completely.

I guess I've got the potential to go nastier than that if I ever decide to write up the Titan class weapons for when I finish the 54mm Warhound, but my intention with those is largely to have them at "narrative power" - they blow up whatever the GM wants to be blown up, thank you very much.

Of course, every time you release a new version, I have to go through my characters and update all of their weaponry. I don't mind it, and it's fun getting to tweak their equipment each time, but there's always that learning period when one of the rules for the weapons are changed.
Yeah, I know. I just can't help adjusting things... sometimes it's better ideas, sometimes it's feedback. Hopefully we'll get to a state where I stop tinkering eventually.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Koval on September 01, 2013, 08:43:26 AM
The conversion beamer, being a very rare techno-arcana weapon almost unique to the tech-priests (I don't agree with space marines gettting them) would be almost  impossible to get your hands on. They should be devastating, given that they're a weapon
IIRC, Ordo Xenos Inquisitors in the Grey Knights codex can get their hands on them, and I've got no problem with Space Marines getting them (keeping in mind that at the moment, the Master of the Forge is the only one that has access to it).

The only conversion beamer access issue to which I take exception is the sample Ordo Xenos nemesis in Rogue Trader: Hostile Acquisitions, as she not only has two of them, but they've also been stripped down. However, it's entirely likely that they did that because of the cool piece of artwork below the offending profile, and to highlight the limitless potential for resources an Inquisitor can command (compared with a Rogue Trader).

Quote from: Marco
Ignoring the problems with a beam based total conversion weapon in the first place
I'm not sure about "total conversion" -- all the fluff I can find on them simply says "converts matter to energy" or "converts mass to energy" without explicitly stating that we're dealing with total conversion. I realise that that's what the implication is, but I think it's more likely that we're dealing with partial conversion. Partial conversion's easier to swallow, as we're dealing with Dark Age tech that happened when some bright spark decided to weaponise a conversion field. Total conversion's not as feasible.

Having said that, this is definitely something to which we should avoid giving rules -- they're just that rare and problematic.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Gilleon on September 01, 2013, 09:39:00 AM
Quote
IIRC, Ordo Xenos Inquisitors in the Grey Knights codex can get their hands on them, and I've got no problem with Space Marines getting them (keeping in mind that at the moment, the Master of the Forge is the only one that has access to it).

The character I had in mind was a Deathwatch forge master. Never going to see an actual "normal" game, but i like to know how thing's work when i make a model for them. My thinking though was that there are already weapons roughly as powerful (the plasma cannon), and weapons as rare/technologically advanced (the Graviton gun, Neural shredder), but as i said, all a matter of curiosity. I'll have a crack at some house rules and see how we go.

Oh and as for the science of matter conversion, i try not to be too "hard" when it comes to scientific explanations of 40k equipment, as much as i love science, getting too technical with purely theoretical technologies is a little too much pressure on the brain.  :P

Oh and i noticed the Mars pattern Lasgun should be weight 35 (25+ 5 for stock, +5 for extended barrel), unless i'm missing something.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 01, 2013, 10:57:32 AM
I'm not sure about "total conversion"
Regardless, in any case, any percentage of conversion of mass to energy is likely to be instantly and immediately fatal to anything hit.

Converted matter is 21 billion times more energy per gramme than TNT. Conversion of a few dozen cells would be kilos worth of explosive - and a single eyelash would be about a tonne or two.
But what's more scary is relativistic velocity. At 259,627,885 m/s (0.866 c), an object has more kinetic energy than the total conversion of its rest mass.
And then some things decide to get themselves to within 0.0000000000000000000005% of the speed of light, have 300 billion times their rest mass in kinetic energy, and hit our planet. Fortunately, they're mostly sub-atomic particles.


Quote
Dark Age tech that happened when some bright spark decided to weaponise a conversion field.
Right then. That makes even less sense. Energy conversion is a totally different beastie to mass conversion.

My thinking though was that there are already weapons roughly as powerful (the plasma cannon)
If there are plasma cannon rules, it's not something from either the rulebook or the RIA.

... yet, anyway.

Quote
Oh and i noticed the Mars pattern Lasgun should be weight 35 (25+ 5 for stock, +5 for extended barrel), unless i'm missing something.
Why couldn't you notice that with the other ones before...? *Goes off grumbling something*

That's the problem with having sloppily changed some weights previously...
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Koval on September 01, 2013, 12:27:47 PM
I'm not sure about "total conversion"
Regardless, in any case, any percentage of conversion of mass to energy is likely to be instantly and immediately fatal to anything hit.
That's sort of the point :P

Quote
Quote
Dark Age tech that happened when some bright spark decided to weaponise a conversion field.
Right then. That makes even less sense. Energy conversion is a totally different beastie to mass conversion.
At least, that's my understanding of it -- I don't remember the source in question.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on September 01, 2013, 12:34:27 PM
That's sort of the point :P
Not in an Inquisitor game it isn't...
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Koval on September 01, 2013, 12:49:36 PM
Agreed, not in an Inquisitor game, but that's why you're not making rules for them, and that's why I think not making rules for them is a very good idea!
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on April 04, 2015, 08:36:23 PM
Shock! Horror!

It's the Revised Inquisitor Armoury V5.5 (http://www.mediafire.com/?otqbbsoc8kg107f/)!

This is a (hopefully) living Beta version, so I hope to be able to make updates relatively soon. It's not V6, as that's (still) waiting for more background text and the Xeno weapons to be ready, but it does include other updates.

- Recoil rules have been simplified. It does make the high recoiling weapons a bit harsher to use, but it also cuts down on the amount of dice rolling needed.
- Two new universal special rules: Soft AP and Multiple Hits. Several weapons were using very similar effects, so they're now basic rules.
- The Hazard rules have been modified to use the version from the Inquisitor 2 draft.
- Assorted simplifications.
- A few range band changes for shotgun ammunition.
- Quite a lot of changes for Bolt ammunition. The Heavy versions of rounds now have specific rules (rather than just +D6 damage). There are cases where the damage stats now use D8s, but the old D6 versions remain an alternative for those without D8s.
- Photon Flash grenades! They have localised area of effect (unlike the LRB) so no more stunning characters over the other side of the table - but they are also more effective against targets in their immediate vicinity.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on March 21, 2016, 12:12:20 PM
Revised Inquisitor Armoury V5.6:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/otqbbsoc8kg107f/Revised+Inquisitor+Armoury+v5-6.doc

Changes:
- Further simplification of recoil
- A couple of new weapons (Double Rifles, Hellfire grenades)
- Assorted tweaks to stats throughout the document, often to weapon shot counts and reloads.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: TallulahBelle on July 11, 2016, 01:57:41 PM
Two quick comments from old discussion.

The ripper gun at least as far as the 3.5/4th ed 40k codex (the one with the doctrines mechanic) the ripper gun isn't a Shot weapon even though the profile suggests it should be. Its described as a very large calibre weapon that's very crudely made in terms of tolerances (so the buggers dont break it when used as a close combat beatstick) that combined with the fact its mag fed iv always seen it as something along the lines of something like .454casual or .500s&w/50ae.

Large calibre rounds which explains both the punch at short range but limited by the fact its a short straight wall cartridge so cant handle the powders and pressures needed to get rifle like velocity and therefore the recoil is bloody high because 1. The weight of the projectile 2. The velocity isn't great because pf the powder limitation, the projectile weight and the fact its fully automatic.

The bolter despite being a very large calibre round (.75 inch according to the 5th edition gamer special edition ammo tin's selection of the shell size and length.) doesn't suffer from the same limitation as even those versions which are depicted as 2 stage rounds starting as a conventional powder propelled bullet have a gyrojet esque rocket booster. Which explains why bolters at least some of them have always been depicted as caseless the rocket fuel contained in a case which burns off as the fuel does just like the gyrojet.

Now the real gyrojet rounds get more damaging in flight their velocity increasing AFTER they leave the barrel going from around 120fpsto around 1800fps at around 40 feet if memory serves which made them a bugger to shoot well and crap for personal protection as at the 2-4ft of an average SD shooting its more like being hit by a paintball than a bullet.

The rocket boost increasing the fps of the round in flight explains why such a large calibre round can actually have the long range of a bolter because it means that the projectile will be gaining velocity rather than losing it real quick due to wind resistance and gravity.

Bearing in mind with a 4" barrel to hit a target at 100m the hold over for a 357 is somewhere in the region of 12" (meaning to hit the target centre mass im holding the sights on the targets face) that easily explains the limited range of the ripper gun especially if you consider the barrels being designed to tolerate lacklustre cleaning, the odd knock and the fact that the sights are designed for stable and solid first accuracy second (precision iron sights being fairly fragile and intolerant of being bashed around)
 
When you increase bullet rate recoil will go up and when the gun is designed to be full auto the recoil will be even fiercer especially if used by a normal human which again further justifies the short range. It's a spray weapon which gets it's effective damage from the rounds being in the air.

Much as im loath to repeat tired tropes id say the ripper is somewhat similar to the AK (the military arm rather than the civilian sale one produced for sport shooters) as those intended for civilian sales tend to be more accurate and better built. The AK hAd during the soviet era to pass QC to be capable of 8moa (broadly speaking if it put 10 shots within an 8" spread at 100m that was a pass) and when given to poorly trained conscripts who didnt really clean or well care for the weapons (bending barrels using the 'wirecutter' flash hider to cut the bands securing ammo crates wasn't uncommon) that accuracy goes down fairly quick. Built to work and put rounds in the air rather than be a marksman's wet dream able to circumcise a gnat at 20 paces.
Any more accuracy than bare minimum would be a waste in the ripper because its wielders by people who are described as firing them 'because they like the noise' rather than taking time to aim and get good with them.

If you take 40k tabletop ranges as 'the effective range' where hits are the norm for that unit and are a combination of the weapons own inherent accuracy and the training/competence of the shooter. The 12" range for a solid shot fairly crude large calibre automatic make sense. So the 24" range of a lasgun is similar to the fact the M4 in the hands of a US line infantry shooter  is considered to have a combat effective range of around 500m and they aren't taught or expected to shoot much further than that even though the cartridge and platform is capable of 800-1000m in the hands of a skilled shooter


I view INQ ranges to be based purely on the Gun because of the increasing accuracy penalties at longer ranges mechanic reflecting things like bullet drop, the loss of velocity at long range and the quality of the ammo/sight system.
 
Dunno if that actually helps or hinders but that's my thoughts and what I remember from canon anyway hope it gives you something to consider.

The other thing is Flamers, now... It depends how the flamer tanks work BUT I know both Canonically in the world of 40K literature AND in the real world penetration of a backpack tank flamer can lead to the flame trooper having a VERY VERY bad day.

It was common in WW2 for the things to go up because the tank was under a large amount of pressure Any piercings of the tank would lead to a spray of atomized fuel into the air around the user and the pilot light would send that up in a fireball. (there's a fairly good discussion with an MOH recipient flamethrower specialist from the japanese campaign on Son of Guns during their restoration and testing of an original ww2 flamethrower. where he discusses the risk of the tanks going up and other troops fear of that happening as well as specialists un building the things talking about the dangers of the pressure, tanks rupturing and maiming people, backwash igniting the whole setup etc)

In terms of Black library books, the Firstborn novel (the one clearing out the uprising on the prison world) has one of the poor sods go up and kill him and someone next to him. It happens in one of the Cain books and in one of the books that make up that anthology IG containing depictions of 4-5 different regiments.

I would say it would be rare for them to go up BUT I would say it should be possible. Maybe with it being more likely if the guy is firing or has fired it during the turn he's hit. Maybe some sort of modifier based on what rounds are shooting at him. I'd say anything Armour Piercing should be able to crack open the tank and one of the incendiary rounds could probably set the thing off more easily than a standard round.

Now some weapons probably couldn't set the tank off but... With the pilot light providing the ignition source all you'd really need is the tank penetrated because it is canon that the pilot lights are constantly on. Its used as cigarette/cheroot/cigar lighter by guardsmen in allot of books and in the post vehunhive short story in the Ghost's anthology the actual workings of a flamer are discussed when one stops working. The Pilot light runs on a separate sparking/ignition system to the fuel sprayer and carries its own igniter which is meant to be constantly on unless turned off for movement/transport/stealth reasons.

Again thus is just my thoughts offered for consideration/pondering/filing in thebroundncabinet as appropriate so...
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on July 12, 2016, 01:08:25 AM
The ripper gun at least as far as the 3.5/4th ed 40k codex (the one with the doctrines mechanic) the ripper gun isn't a Shot weapon even though the profile suggests it should be.
The RIA is, naturally, my interpretation of the weapons in the WH40K universe; however, although there are some suppositions in there, I am (usually :P) working from canon sources.

For the Ripper gun, I used the Imperial Munitorum Manual as a guideline; It's a source that describes a fair number of weapons in some degree of detail (as opposed to trying to build up an overall picture from the various contradictory details that less in-depth sources provide).
The description given there is a sturdy, burst-fire shotgun, which to me is a perfectly reasonable answer to the kind of weapon you would give a thick lunk who doesn't really understand the concepts of shot placement or long range combat. Sure, ogryns like fighting, but shooting someone even fifty metres off isn't what they consider a fight.

In any case, RIA is only a guideline, in any case. Should a player decide that their own ogryn character has been supplied with solid slug ammunition for their Ripper gun (rather than the shot shells many regiments would issue), that would be entirely within the realms of plausibility.

Quote
Which explains why bolters at least some of them have always been depicted as caseless the rocket fuel contained in a case which burns off as the fuel does just like the gyrojet.
I've yet to find any legitimate source for bolters being caseless, despite challenging a lot of people to provide one.

It's possible there's some reference in a BL novel or something somewhere, but all unverified claims I've heard that "it's in Rogue Trader somewhere, honest" are badly outnumbered by the overwhelming quantity of artwork/video games/films showing bolter cases flying around, references to cases in the background and many of the models, as well as actual merchandise (the Masters paint set had a "bolter case" water pot).

My guess is that because that autogun fluff mentions caseless rounds, people got mixed up.

Quote
The other thing is Flamers, now... It depends how the flamer tanks work BUT I know both Canonically in the world of 40K literature AND in the real world penetration of a backpack tank flamer can lead to the flame trooper having a VERY VERY bad day.
I would agree... however, while RIA does try to be more realistic than the LRB, anything that can be described as "very very bad day" is something I am wary about from a playability and enjoyability perspective.

Quote
I would say it would be rare for them to go up BUT I would say it should be possible.
Making extreme events rarer is not necessarily a good way of balancing them, at least not from a psychological perspective.

Let's say we have a player doing something that has a 20% chance of going badly wrong for their character. If that 20% chance happens, he's going to be annoyed, but he will have at least accepted a chance that big was a possibility.
However, if the same bad event has a 2% chance then, although it's a lot less likely to happen, when it does, the player is going to be much more bitter; he will have almost automatically disregarded that 2% chance as a threat, and will feel like he's been screwed over by the dice that much more.

Nasty things in game almost shouldn't be too rare for that reason. Aside from it meaning that said cool stuff doesn't happen, it means that players get particularly screwed over (or at least feel like they have been) if they're on the wrong end of it. With that in mind, I prefer toning back extreme circumstances by making them less extreme than less common.

However, I do want to look at the rules for fuel backpacks again. I'm just not yet sure how I want to go about them. Flamers are indeed nasty weapons in the rules, real life and the background, so fuel leaks are potentially a way of offsetting that. However, threatening players with the risk of their characters spontaneously being cremated by a stray bullet is not an overwhelming motivation for players to use said rules.
There needs to be a medium, I think.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: TallulahBelle on July 13, 2016, 12:49:49 AM
Weird, I have the munitoriummanual and never twigged that the ripper gun according to the munitorium was a shotgun compared to it being discussed as solid shot everywhere else.

The bolter caseless thing, iv seen it depicted and discussed as both although whether you consider a mention in a WD discussion of model design being canon idk. It was something about the bolter having an ejection port added and approved before realising the things are caseless. Weirdly at the time GW sold an 'eavy metal' paint set which included a bolter shell water pot. I suspect that the bolter thing has been different according to when and who was writing and ultimately the 'shell casings are cool' approach won put.

I do know that the CURRENT discussion of the science behind the  bolter round is as I mentioned in the above post in the justification for the low range of a solid shell ogryn ripper gun a two stage shell made up of the casing with primer and powder then a solid fuel rocket booster and then the actual 'bolt' so it's struck by the pin/hammer/electronic detonation of the primer, primer ignites powder burns gas expands and once the shell leaves the gun the increased oxygen allows the rocket bit to happen giving the hyper velocity and hideous power we all know and love (until its pointed at us)

With the flamer stuff I can really see your point about the risk being a cool mechanic not outweighing it not being fun and rule of cool has to still be fun for the player. The risk of it happening would have to be low in order to encourage flame weapons to get any play and not to annoy people and a character dying due to a single lucky shot that didn't even hit them and potentially killing the flametrooper and friends could cause ill feeling especially if the mechanic was open to abuse via deliberate aiming at the tank.

Personally I think it's something I would leave to be a risk for my NPC flametroopers only and use it to give interesting cinematic moments rather than exposing the players to it. So wouldn't need anything beyond GM fiat in the rules department. Although if I had a player whose entire warband had backpack flamethrowers and was causing discontent I may use the option as a hint.

Realism is nice but when it can cause ill will or drama sometimes it does have to take a backseat. I just posted my info on flame weapons as food for thought because one of the reasons they didnt really see much use post ww2 in terms of man portable/special weapon roles and even vehicle mounted weapons was because they did tend to immolate their wielders on a depressingly regular basis.

On the flamer note have you thought about how things like the hound variants weapons could be used in INQ  things that use the flamer rules but aren't simple promethium?
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on July 19, 2016, 12:06:13 AM
The bolter caseless thing, iv seen it depicted and discussed as both although whether you consider a mention in a WD discussion of model design being canon idk. It was something about the bolter having an ejection port added and approved before realising the things are caseless.
Without a page number, that's not a lot of use to me.

In any case, even it is a genuine quote, it's silly:

1) Caseless weapons do need ejection ports. The chamber needs to be cleared if there's have a dud round or the weapon needs to be made safe.
2) Even supposing that it didn't need an ejection port, approving a modification to an STC design is a very slow and closely vetted process. (Even a pure STC design can take centuries to reach production after rediscovery).

Quote
once the shell leaves the gun the increased oxygen allows the rocket bit to happen giving the hyper velocity and hideous power we all know and love (until its pointed at us)
Solid rocket propellant contains its own oxygen (which is somewhat convenient, given Space Marines often have to fight in vacuum conditions); it just doesn't burn quite as fast or explosively as gun powders.

Also, getting into pedantry :P, boltguns probably aren't hypervelocity. Hypervelocity is a velocity that exceeds or is a significant proportion of the speed of sound in the impacting materials (not to be confused with the speed of sound in air). This has the effect of somewhat literally liquefying the targets during the impact, as the velocities involved exceed the speeds at which the stresses can propagate through the material, almost entirely negating the material's strength.

Bolt rounds are certainly going to be faster than you'd expect for a high calibre round fired from a comparatively short barrel, but unless we make insanely generous assumptions about the efficiency of the propellants available (and we have no particular reason to), their peak velocity probably isn't going to be wildly different from a conventional rifle; the advantage is more that the hybrid propellants partially off-set the recoil and allow the use of a smaller overall weapons platform.

(Actually, the bolter makes a heck of a lot of sense as an STC design, particularly when you consider early colonists would have encountered Orks. Although the lack of a stock is still questionable...)

Quote
On the flamer note have you thought about how things like the hound variants weapons could be used in INQ  things that use the flamer rules but aren't simple promethium?
I have, and there are indeed a few non-fire based weapons that use the flamer rules.

I probably should expand that list into weapons that spout toxin or corrosive at some stage, yes, although it may be an issue to balance. It will take a while though, as RIA is currently somewhat secondary to IRE as my main rules writing project.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: TallulahBelle on July 19, 2016, 04:28:39 AM
I do enjoy these discussions with you @MarcoSkoll as you share my interest in firearms design and mechanics rather than the DEAGLE AM BESTUST WEAPON style gun nuts who infest the airsoft boards.

Yeah I did think that was odd once I had read it at the time actually, as for numbers erm sometime before the WD War of the Beard series which puts it between say 240 and 265 I can't really be more specific as annoyingly my mother randomly decided to throw all my WD's away when I was 16.

It could be done if the Bolter was designed somewhat similar to the volcanic where we'd have to access the rounds via the loading port possibly although clearing a dud round would then be something that couldn't be done on a battlefield especially given that that dud shell could be something with an impact detonating tip or contained some hideous mutagenic chemical and the clearance method would involve a drill bit and a steady hand.

the bolter being a hypervelocity round I could see a case for because we aren't limited by the power of the powder charge as that's only stage one of it's propulsion, so it would entirely depend as to the lift capability of the Rocket stage that ignites once the round leaves the barrel. a .220 swift which is the fastest commercially available round I'm aware of is about 4'700fps give or take a few fps. and that's a 30gr bullet with 39gr of powder. A bolter is nominally around 20mm given the dimensions given in the 5th Edition gamer edition ammo box. a modern 20mm orliken has a 400gr powder capacity of a slower burning powder (mainly because of heat issues) with the round running around 3,380 fps depending on which version of 20mm you use (modern loadings)

 in the 41st millennium things like adamantium and ceramite exist heat as something that overheats barrels could be less of an issue. (We know that Heavy Bolters don't have any cooling mechanism) and have a fire rate of around 580rpm* (according to the Space Marine Game) so barrel cooling doesn't seem to be an issue so faster powders could easily be used so with a conservative easily achievable velocity of say 2200fps as it leaves the muzzle especially combined with the fact that to defeat plastic compesite or ceramic armour Velocity is king (as opposed to steel armour where weight is king.

we know that the standard non carapace guard armour is a plastic composite weight somewhere in the region of 20kg (at least that armour issued to a light infantry regiment, the standard trooper armour may weigh more) though that description is fairly vague as it could be read that some of that weight is magazines and pouches full of issue kit and a bolt round will rip straight through flak without even stopping to knock and we know that rifle level III  poly plastic plate weighing around 3.4kg (large front and back plate in the SAPI cut which is fairly similar to what guard plate is depicted as (I'm using the NIJ ratings here as they give a calibre listing of what each level means, though annoyingly modern armour salesmenship has created things like III+ (based on going look look our level 3 plate also stops this this and this) will stop  .308 FMJ at 2750fps handily for multiple rounds. to punch through a single Poly LIII plate 7.62 wont cut it BUT something like .224boz which is a much smaller calibre at the same velocity will do. (those rounds are generally much like rifle bullets in shape, definitely pointy)

so for a shell like a 19mm which is shown to be in size a pistol round (in terms of case length anyway) depicted as round tipped and full size for the calibre (rather than a sleeved subcalibre sabot type round) to punch through flak as easily as a bolter will would need to be travelling at an INSANE velocity simply to overcome the inefficiency of the bullet design and the fact its such a large calibre so given that it has the advantage of a secondary source of power, I don't think hypervelocity (or close to it) is unreasonable. .220swift with it's 32gr bullet will go through even Level IV armour like it isn't even there because of the speed so to get a 1,543grain bullet (3.5oz) to punch through armour with the same kind of performance it either needs to be some scary sabot type weapon like we are seeing with tank rounds with something like a needle thin tungsten/DU penetrator which isn't something standard bolt rounds have (though does explain how the special armour piercing one, the Kraken Penetrator that the DW use to crack monstrous creatures works, which is at least circa WD259 was described as having an adamantium penetrator) plus we know a bolt round isn't depleted uranium because Leman Russ tank crews aren't depicted as full of cancer and marines aren't glowing.

so it wouldn't surprise me for a Bolter to have a round at the point which it's accelerated by the rocket to the fastest it's possibly capable of for it to reach closer to hypervelocity. When you consider that the Stalker pattern silenced shell has less armour penetration capability than a standard shell, supersonic is loud but supressable anything approaching hypervelocity, the sound would travel much much further.

*given that a Storm bolter is running 480 and a Godwyn Deaz pattern is around 420 recoil must be bloody horrible which does explain why marines can't move and fire the Heavy bolter even with the armour providing recoil dampening and does explain why the ones who could (the Deathwatch, and those with the Relentless special rule) were either using specialist recoil reducing Suspensor fields, were Physically MASSIVE brutes (Harker, Bragg or similar individuals) or superhuman above and beyond a normal marine via mutation, chaos weirdness or the supernatural (Obliterators, LOTD and Thousand Son's)

That's my logic for the idea anyway, hope the way I thought makes at least some sense, I really want to see how your recoil rules play out as I think that would really make people consider not taking bolters so casually as some places I have played they seem an auto include. I have never understood why Bolters don't have stocks, purely from a balance point of view (in terms of wielding one) I can't see something of that length with the weight of a full magazine being comfortable to shoot well. I can shoot the gas in magazine recoiling G36c Airsoft gun with the stock folded fairly well stock folded. but it's awkward and that's only a smallish weight gun thats short and light enough to shoot as a pistol one handed even with a mag weighted like a real 30 rounder and its bolt recoiling back (maybe 50g max.) the balance of the weapon is more even and it can be held Bolt pistol style easily. With the 36 on a sling that is pulled taut I can shoot it one handed all day though without getting frustrated with it.

 the FAL one of the guys has with a DaytonaGun system with it's heavier weight (steel lower, ali upper) 13" barrel and about 150psi pushing a steel bolt back is allot harder to manage comfortably again not because of the recoil but because of the weight and length on the gun just being a pain in the arse, it's bulky, the balance isn't as nice so it feels heavier than it actually is and even with a 3 point sling pulled taut (german army or High Power shooter) it's still awkward as hell but as soon as you unfold the stock it becomes a dream, the balance is perfect, it's small enough to not get in the way in CQB style stuff and it's perfect.

A bolter REALLY needs a stock and to be honest at least HALF the bolt pistols to my mind should have an under or side folder or a one point sling to make GW's poses make sense. If you were handling the pistol  based on their stances you'd be miserable really quickly just because of how awkward the balance is on the bolt pistols plus the bolter for a normal person without the armour compensating with it's google glass style target overlay has absolutely dog [EXCOMMUNICATE] sighting systems. either iron sights unsupported or trying to hold a really crappily balanced HEAVY wide rifle at full stretch to use the scope as a pistol scope. so for me having to keep my arm locked so the eye relief is 14 inch. Urrgh. poor design for a weapon thats so effective especially when shooting immensely dangerous and or valuable ammo thats really hard to resupply with. stuff that give me a bolter with a stock.

the Banewolf flamer equivalent  would be cool as a weapon, maybe use something like an immediate damage roll for the toxic gas with an if it makes contact with the skin (represented by acidic toxic gas eating through the armour to do damage) treat it like you have been hit with the Blood Boil psychic power attack?  I would like to see the reputation of the Banewolf as a terror weapon in INQ reflected in it's rules BUT I don't really know how to do it in a way that isn't clunky.

my first thought would be something like this...

BaneTorch -the coup attempt of Arnal the head of one of the noble families that resented the Government of Colios, after he orchestrated the dismantling of the Democratic Council of Colios brought this rare weapon into the eye of the Adeptus Arbites who began issuing them as a weapon of last resort. Arnal manipulating the press gangs supplying men and women to the Adeptus Militant for the tithe, The disappearance of key votes allowed him to suspend the council, declaring himself Cisar prozivot, his actions plunged Colios into Civil war. where the violence crippled the efforts of the Enforcers not loyal to the upstart ability to supress a mutant uprising. modified version of the . Used by the 131st Coney Dragoon's commonly nicknamed the Pinschers as a crowd clearance weapon when forced to dismount from their scouting vehicles, the Banetorch is a heavy flamer variant based on the BaneWolf's Chem Cannon. it's short range and devastating effect on the morale of those it is deployed against when viewed against it's impact on troop morale means it is rarely seen in the armouries of the Imperial Guard however it has found a home in some Enforcer armouries particularly on worlds where water is a limited resource and flamers are considered too much of a risk to deploy.

Type: Heavy Range: 8 Mode: Flame Acc – Damage 2D6-4* Shots 3 RLD 6 WT 60

•   models hit by the BaneTorch must take a resistance check due to the Toxic nature of the Acidic gas that is eating through their armour and searing their flesh as if exposed to a Gas weapon with equipment modifiers as normal. (Note the toxin hangs and so subsequent hits from this weapon will impose a -2% to the gas resistance, plus an additional 2% for any contaminated anti gas equipment. Example a character with Bionic Lungs would face a -2% plus an additional -2% for his bionic lungs for a total of -4% to his/her test on the second hit, rising to a -8% for the third hit and so on. This -2% can be removed via the use of a medpack/regeneration or similar abilities/psychic powers/sorcery however the player must choose between removing the -2% modifier OR remove D3 damage they cannot do both with a single recovery action. Other characters may assist as normal.

Characters that fail their resistance test take injury equal to one level of the damage tables to the chest and one other exposed location (exposed = a location either bare flesh or covered in cloth only, if there are more than one of these locations roll a die to decide. ) for each 20% the test was failed. (similar to being hit by the psychic blood boil. if the test was failed with a roll of 96-100 then the toxic spray reduces all armoured locations by 1 Point.

Characters who have been hit by the BaneTorch will treat the wielder as Terrifying and must pass a nerve test to step within the range of the weapon. note even characters which would downgrade this to fearsome/ignore this entirely must test

 A character with Nerves of steel that has passed his test to enter within range of the wielder does not have to test again.

terrifying characters who have made a successful test will treat the wielder as fearsome.

Fearsome characters who have passed the test take subsequent tests at -20%

Hopefully this would pass muster as some basic first attempt at a banewolf style weapon. I tried to replace the heavy flamer but reflect the fact that the inferno cannon in 40K can launch the template across the battlefield representing the torrent of flame But the Banewolf is limited by the range of the template. I wanted to get a sense of the level of sheer horror that this weapon is said to cause, the damage isn’t great bu the background gives descriptions of it being fired and units supporting the banewolf freeing in horror and terror themselves. I think I have captured that somewhat. IDK how to add that to it thought. The Melta one I would have to really think about due to the sheer power involved.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on July 20, 2016, 06:22:05 PM
the bolter being a hypervelocity round I could see a case for because we aren't limited by the power of the powder charge as that's only stage one of it's propulsion
The maximum volume of propellant is still defined by the overall side of the bolt round and there's there's no good reason I can see that we should assume the rocket stage to be hyper efficient either; In fact, I'd say rocket propulsion is actually less viable for achieving hypervelocity, given the standard issue about rockets having to carry their own fuel.

Hypervelocity is very energetic; At 2900 m/s (9500 fps), the kinetic energy of a 1 gram projectile exceeds the chemical energy of one gram of TNT.
Assuming we have a 1 gram projectile propelled by a rocket fuel roughly as chemically dense as TNT (which is not an unreasonable ballpark), then even if almost the entirety of that projectile is rocket fuel, and that fuel burns 100% efficiently and turns all that chemical energy into kinetic energy, then the negligble remainder of the projectile will have a velocity of about 2900 m/s.

However, that's still off the low end of hypervelocity (which is generally considered to start at about 3 km/s, roughly 9900 fps). That's why hypervelocity normally requires very different technologies like light gas guns or railguns, without these same chemical limits.

But even if we suppose the bolter could achieve hypervelocity through use of much more energy dense propellants (but that the background does quote muzzle velocities for things like autopistols or heavy stubbers that are broadly equivalent to modern weapons, it would not seem the Imperium is wildly ahead of us on that front), the round would become quite an oddity. As I've already noted, at hypervelocity, the kinetic energy of a round exceeds the chemical energy of the same mass of TNT; the concept of combining hypervelocity and a direct-impact explosive (as opposed to an area-of-effect munition) into the same round is kind of weird. Increasing the mass of the projectile would have far more effect on the energy conveyed to the target, making filling out its volume with comparatively low density explosive rather illogical.

There's also not really much of a concept of "armour piercing" at such velocities (like I say, the impacting materials can largely be thought of as liquid; their strength or hardness are almost redundant compared to their density and inertia), so the idea of bolt rounds having a diamantine tip would also be somewhat redundant.

Bolts are definitely going to be doing a fair old lick for 19mm projectiles fired from comparatively short barrels, but my personal estimation is that  their velocities are probably up to about 500 m/s at the muzzle, with a short-burn rocket motor that gets them up to a peak velocity of maybe as much as 800 m/s, attained probably around 10-20 metres from the muzzle.

That relates to a reasonable acceptable maximum for recoil (although I'm being generous in permitting recoil impulses more appropriate to a stocked weapon), and a velocity that would provide a reasonable trajectory out to sensible small-arms ranges. Using more propellant than necessary for that would only use up space within the volume of the round that could instead be used for the explosive core, which is going to deliver energy more effectively to the target.

The kinetic energy and velocity would be broadly equivalent to .50 BMG - and as even the standard ball variants of .50 BMG can defeat Lvl III or IV plates in steel or ceramic, so a bolt round with its hardened tip and high explosive core is going to do pretty well even in spite of its larger calibre.

Plus, although I wouldn't normally give too much credence to WH40K rules, it is worth remembering that bolters are AP5, which means that carapace is at least partially effective against them. At hypervelocity, that's not going to happen. As already mentioned, material strength is almost entirely irrelevant at those velocities*, meaning that armour's effectiveness is mostly defined by its inertia; but given carapace has to be wearable, we can rule out that as a possibility.

*Unless the material has an extraordinarily high speed of sound, but that's defined by known rules, and with armaplas being explicitly a plastic/metal composite, it's not going to fare well on that front.

High velocity, certainly. But not hypervelocity.

Quote
a 1,543grain bullet (3.5oz)
~100g sounds unreasonably heavy for a bolt. That's more like the weight of an 20x82mm projectile or the like, which has a similar composition (in terms of containing explosive, penetrator cores and the like), but is both slightly higher calibre and much greater length than a bolt.
My estimations of the weight of a standard bolt after all fuel is burnt is roughly 50 grams.

Quote
When you consider that the Stalker pattern silenced shell has less armour penetration capability than a standard shell, supersonic is loud but supressable anything approaching hypervelocity, the sound would travel much much further.
Well, that's more of a reason why bolts can't be hypervelocity. Let me show you some pictures from some nutters I know elsewhere on the internet.

This is what a supersonic 0.12g airsoft BB does to a 1mm metal plate:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/M99BKkD27d0/hqdefault.jpg)
Large dents for a plastic pellet, but still just dents. (Original video here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M99BKkD27d0) - note that the 420fps in the description is the camera frame rate, not the velocity).
A slightly more energetic airsoft gun, although firing heavier BBs at a lower velocity, can be seen here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps-8Xi5D_Ho) needing multiple shots to finally penetrate a similar target.

This is what a hypervelocity 0.12g airsoft BB does to a 3mm metal plate.
(http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy3/MarcoSkoll/Miscellaneous/HV_Airsoft2_480.jpg)
The target has literally vaporised; the immediate point of impact was reduced to plasma.
(Yes, there is someone out there who's built a hypervelocity airsoft gun. It bears no resemblance to a normal airsoft gun, being a heavily engineered lump of steel that operates on electrothermal-chemical propulsion).

That's the difference between a supersonic and a hypervelocity impact. If bolts were hypervelocity, stalker bolts wouldn't even be in the league below the league that something that wasn't in the same league as a standard bolt was in.

Quote
[Insert Banetorch description here]
I tend not to describe histories of specific weapons in RIA, as I know many players will just re-write or ignore that background.

Quote
[Insert Banetorch rules here]
If I'm entirely blunt? Yes, that is clunky.

One problem is that you're trying to override a lot of other rules which is very bad for interactions between different player's characters. Let's suppose a servitor gets hit with it. The player gave the servitor Force of Will to represent its complete lack of emotion*... except, apparently, now.
*It might potentially have self-preservation routines, but that's the difference between the emotional "Oh frak, oh frak, oh frak, that's a daemon prince" of a character failing a Nv test and the logical "This combat situation is non-optimal. Analysis: Withdraw to safe distance" of a character intentionally using their actions to move away.

Also, no matter how intimidating a weapon it may be, it does not merit an area-of-effect, heavily upgraded version of Terrifying. Angron himself manifesting might, but I think a toxin thrower needs to be a few notches lower on the "brown trousers" scale than that.

Personally, I'd just penalise Pinning and throw on the fleeing effect from Terrifying if a character fails their test badly enough. (With an acceptance that either Nerves of Steel or Force of Will would negate these effects as normal. Even if I don't personally agree that every character out there who has these skills should, it's far more of a mess if I assume none of them should).
I'd also possibly require characters within, say, 5 yards to test for Pinning as well (although probably without the fleeing effect), even if not a nominated target.

The lasting terror effects are likely to be a bookkeeping nuisance. I'd also predict it throwing up lots of oddities. (If a character can clearly see the user is reloading the Banetorch, why is it still so scary? Why is a hardy and stoic character who only got some minor chemical corrosion to a bionic arm apparently more intimidated than a weak-willed scribe who was nearby when someone got completely dissolved? Do we now have to keep pre-measuring to find out if the character is within range?) This would seem to be one of the many cases where it's probably better if the rules serve to guide, rather than compel, behaviour (what I'd call roleplay and ruleplay). If the weapon's rules are sufficiently nasty to be hit by, that itself will serve to encourage characters to avoid getting hit by it.

The rules also get into minutae. At only a -2 penalty to their toughness per hit, a character is very likely to be taken out of the game before that the level of toxin in their system actually adds up to anything significant.
Anything that needs to come across as really toxic is better represented by a flat modifier (and, indeed, I'm planning on introducing a "toxicity" modifier in IRE in order that not all poisons are equal).

Other than that, I've a feeling it might actually be unnecessarily brutal in terms of how much damage it could potentially do, particularly as it's focusing large amounts of damage on just one location.
While the description of the chemicals does state the victim's blood boils in their veins, this does not necessarily mean it should work like the Blood Boil power (which has some of the highest possible Difficulties for a reason). The power's name is actually metaphorical, as the description states that it's the victim's blood pressure and pulse that hit lethal levels - which is a far more realistic explanation for its in-game effects, but "Blood Hypertension" doesn't sound as good.

It might sound like I'm being overly critical (and I perhaps am), but I will say you've picked a very hard weapon to try to translate to a narrative game. A terror weapon has got to be horrific to hit by, but that's damn hard to get across without really messing with the game balance.

I'll look into it, but I suspect that whatever I come up with will be at least partially offset by being pretty damn dangerous to use (in accordance with the fluff about how the clouds of gas can often end up drifting over friendly troops, making the fielding of Bane Wolves something of a morale liability).

Quote
The Melta one I would have to really think about due to the sheer power involved.
I think I'd divert from a completely direct port of the 40K rules (which seem to just be a blast version of the Multi-melta, which is not something Inquisitor needs. At all.), and instead just end up combining elements of flamer and meltagun rules - broadly, a flamer with a high base damage but a very fast fall-off with distance.

But as far as powerful weapons, I find you often have to start thinking outside the box. For example, my Wraithcannon rules inflict injury levels directly (ignoring the target's Base Injury and armour); as such, it poses a serious threat to Space Marines, without necessarily being an insta-kill on more mortal characters.

I've also penned some rules for Titan-class weapons, although those are more of an exercise (when I finally run a game with Leander, the power of her weapons will be arbitrary - as dangerous as I need them to be at that moment) and intentionally absolutely horrific, given that pretty much nothing in game has a reasonable argument for surviving a direct hit from a plasma cannon the size of a tank.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: TallulahBelle on July 21, 2016, 05:17:36 AM
Yeah I knew it was clunky when I was writing it so freely admitted it. Honstly the reason for writing the banetorch is because it's precisely the type of thing I can see being deployed in Inquisitor, things that are so far beyond the norm, things that are at their core no different from the weapons of the Archenemy. Something some Faceless Enforcer would hose down a protesting mob with where the deployment actually strengthens the cause

it's a weapon I would use as a plot point to be honest but want rules so when the players see it in use they go holy Feth this thing is horrific and really make them think just how fair will their characters go for Him on Terra. plots like The sect that desire to spread panic and terror as a means to make humanity stronger through fear plotting chemical attacks as a plot point with Istavaanian's trying to allow the attack to happen as more Puritan's try to keep the rule of law and Biologis magi try to take a sample for testing.

you're criticism is really helpful though and my justification/responses/requests for idea on how to do what I am wanting with a better written ruleset are here in order

1. The Fearsome/terrifying portion of the weaponset. The logic/reasoning for this was based on a couple of things. Firstly the fact I HATE how Force of Will and Nerves of steel are prevalent in campaigns I've tried to start usually along with a justification that as Inqusitorial retinue they have come into contact with all sorts of horrifying things and survives so have become jaded and unflappable to the extent not even a Bloodthirster manifesting out of their partner during an intimate encounter will scare or shock them. I take the conclave view, that the average Inquisitor is brave but not suicidally so and still feel terror at times and NOS or FOW better represent things that cannot feel fear. Plus I hate how that the Arbite Information gatherer who is fearsome because of his reputation as a brutal torturer will be less afraid of a Deamon Prince of Khorne than the guardsman stood next to him simply because he frightens other people.

I was trying to find some way to fix the issue that would negate the Terror Weapon aspect in my local game. I wasn't really sure about giving it pinning since... I wanted to emphasis the HOLY [EXCOMMUNICATE] I NEED AWAY FROM HERE NOW. aspect that things like this sort of weapon would have and are depicted as having within the Universe. (Commisars executing whole squads to prevent those witnessing the weapon's big brother fired in combat from fleeing etc)

as for the reloading, I guess I missed that and assumed people would take that as read really that when the thing wasn't capable of firing that it wouldn't cause that sort of terror and it would be the perfect time to take it out of action.

looking back over it, it commits the sin of forcing a reaction rather than allowing roleplay, the effect that I want is for people to be shocked by the horrific reaction that it causes in its target but not so much paralysing fear(which is what I view pinning as you curl up un cover waiting for the fusillade to die down) but the deployment of the weapon forces a rout as people panic focusing on getting out of range self preservation and the lizard brain kicking in

2. yeah you're right it would be a pig to keep a note of but I wasn't sure how best to reflect that repeated exposure to the toxin would make the thing more effective and kind of liked the idea of it eating away at bionic lungs and gas masks. some sort of flat modifier like -25 would make more sense. 

3. The effect, I kind of envisaged the BaneWolf's toxin to be something akin to either a more focused version of Chlorine Gas which can douse a person or a unit rather than being indiscriminately used to blanket an entire battlefield.  Something designed to leave the poor sod drowning in his own blood as the blood vessels in the lungs are being eaten away by this horrific bioweapon. Blood Boil was to my sleep deprived mind the easiest way I thought to represent that.  tiny blood vessels in the lungs torn open, the blood instead of being carefully guided through the gas exchange pathway it is instead collecting in the organ.

I tried to set it up that the weapon is not something that can be used indiscriminately, a very low amount of shots, a large reload time and probably didn't do a very good job to be honest. I do want to fix it so it's not as clunky or horrifying but still to have that sense of palpable horror.


Would something like this make more sense/be less overpowered/a pain? Hopefully you kind of get what I want to do with it now and can help a little.

Type: Heavy Range: 8 Mode: Flame Acc – Damage 1point to the hit  location of armour * Shots 3 RLD 6 WT 60

The Banetorch fires a powerful caustic gel that clings to armour and skin, designed as a means to deter rioters by giving them a more immediate problem to face whilst simultaneously making them easier to track down based on the toxins distinctive treatment requirements and weakened by the damage to their armour.

The banetorch fire's as a flamer but a location roll is made as normal shooting, like a  Models hit by the toxin take a toughness test at -25, if failed models will suffer a bleeding effect to D3 random locations and will take 1 level of injury to 1 location covered by armour/bionics (if more than one location fits this description roll at random) 

My idea here is that the bleeding represents the internal bleeding caused by the toxin gel through skin contact/getting in through the eyes and other orifices, Internal bleeding causing long term issues, the level of injury caused by the acidic nature of the gel actually eating way at the armour being worn. The armour/bionic corroding and dissolving, the tainted metal acid mixture dripping onto the skin causing distinctive burns that the enforcers can use later to track down people they exposed to the BaneTorch. the fear reaction now something left for the players to decide how they react. It's more dice rolling however it isn't an oh dear god death weapon but the risk of losing armour would make people reconsider getting close possibly?


I'm hoping that the explanation of what I want it to do would give you a few ideas? the Melta I agree with you on that a direct port isn't something the game could handle though would be good for cracking marines with. Leander fills me with dread to face to be honest, I can think of one thing MAAAYBE that could take the hit and that's a couple of the necron NPC's I have seen over the years (well they would get back up afterwards..... eventually anyway.) I'm assuming the fact that most models would be a greasy smear on the map would stop things like Jax's regeneration from having any effect or similar powers.pass

 Maybe a Deamonhost with Impervious if only due to the +10points to injury total cap on single hits and that each hit would only do one level of injury. though I suspect your VMB will do multiple hits per attack  or possibly something with Instability cast at the time of attack maybe*

*not trying to powergame it just genuinely interested in how you are going to stat her.


Thanks for the help and the fascinating discussion about hypervelocity BB guns. As a marshal at my local site I can SAFELY SAY that doesn't pass chrono even with an MED!  ;D
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on July 21, 2016, 10:11:10 PM
Firstly the fact I HATE how Force of Will and Nerves of steel are prevalent in campaigns I've tried to start
While I agree that it's often not justified on a character, trying to second-guess which characters should and shouldn't have it is a bit of a mess.

I plan on revisiting the fear system in IRE to try to more accurately establish why characters are scary.
- If the character has a dangerous reputation, then any Nerve tests he causes have a penalty.
- If a character is just straight up unnerving to be around, then other characters take a hit to their Nv in the vicinity, regardless of the source.
- If a character is scary because he can obviously tear you limb from limb if you get too close, then getting or staying close inside his melee range requires a Nv test. (Think how the Fearsome/Terrifying rules actually work, rather than how they're usually applied. Expect to see this on characters like Space Marines and Orks. In this case, the cancellation makes sense, as that big burly Ork has a lot less reason to be scared of charging a Space Marine than a Guardsman does).

I'm obviously going to have to revise FoW at the same time, given the system it's based on is changing.
I'm not sure I'll be changing NoS (given IRE is trying avoid invalidating everything) although I've had a thought about splitting it into a tiered skill where tier 1 is a re-roll, and tier 2 means the character auto-passes, but has to test Initiative if they want to fail. (They're so indifferent to danger that finding cover is no longer just not fighting instinct, but a conscious decision).

Quote
Would something like this make more sense/be less overpowered/a pain? Hopefully you kind of get what I want to do with it now and can help a little.
It's a lot better. Its effect in game is going to be hard to predict, as that's partly dependent on how players react to it, but it's not going to be a rules nuisance.

If I still have an issue, I'm not sure it entirely fits the role you're proposing (I'm not sure weapons that dissolve armour are a primary concern for dealing with riots), and I'd probably personally seek to nail down a more consistent description of what the Chem Cannon is to start with.

On one hand, its background describes it attacking flesh and ceramite. On the other, the rules are ineffective against Terminator armour (despite it being primarily armoured with Ceramite) and it can't even touch vehicles. Personally, I think the background version has something of the "universal solvent" problem (A scientist develops a chemical that can dissolve anything. What does he keep it in?).

I think if I were distilling the idea into RIA, I'd cut down the description of it being as toxic, acidic AND virulent (so any Hollywood chemist can tell you it's definitely green) and instead cook up a bunch of different toxins and a bunch of different acids. (I mean rules, I'm not going all Walter White here).
You've got the opening for things between tear gas, nerve toxins, chemicals that are corrosive to skin, stuff that eats clothing... no wait, that one's a teen boy's fantasy. But still, separating those effects out a bit lets them all be effective individually without the overall effect being overwhelming.

Those can then all be different potential ammunitions for a fairly generic "chemical thrower" weapon (rather than specific examples), which is a little truer to the RIA approach than getting too specific.

Quote
Leander fills me with dread to face to be honest, I can think of one thing MAAAYBE that could take the hit and that's a couple of the necron NPC's I have seen over the years (well they would get back up afterwards..... eventually anyway.)
Well, she's not at all intended as something that characters directly fight. Really, her main purpose is to be an imposing display piece. (With a secondary role of helping the players feel like they're part of a bigger story, in a way that getting fire support from something like a Leman Russ wouldn't).

Mostly, she's going to be something the characters will support, be supported by or need to secure support from. There might be some scenarios where the characters have to work around her, but never will any scenario expect that PCs will be taking fire, unless they're doing something seriously silly.

Even in cases where characters may be working against the characters who are working with Leander, Princeps Rogen to an extent considers that kind of thing an internal Inquisition dispute, and isn't likely to get too heavily involved. And that's assuming she even has time to get involved; Titans, even scout titans, aren't called in for a minor skirmish, so she'll often be engaging threats off table.

And in the event that characters should find themselves getting fired on, it's very unlikely to be a direct hit from the main weapons; it's more likely to be fire from the chin-mounted multi-lasers (which serve as a defensive weapon to preserve main weapon ammunition), or maybe splash damage (on a sliding scale of how stupid I think the characters are being).

Quote
I'm assuming the fact that most models would be a greasy smear on the map would stop things like Jax's regeneration from having any effect or similar powers.
As far as Jax, dying stops her regeneration on game timescales. Her blood is a catalyst for her regeneration, so extreme bloodloss or damage to the heart or brain slows her regeneration to less than 1% of its normal rate. That said, her regeneration is still a very formidable warp-fueled effect. I'm not quite sure I'd call it psychic, as it's an unconscious effect with no apparent mechanism (making it somewhat akin to Crotalid migration), but she routinely breaches conservation of mass by regrowing large parts of her body, and her soul and mind seem to remain entirely intact through death.
(It also serves as a limiting factor that stops her lost body parts trying to regenerate into clones of her. In cases of massive trauma, her regeneration seems to mostly work on the largest remaining part*).

A direct hit from the Plasma Blastgun would definitely put her out of the game but, in the long term, she'd survive; with the power of her mutation, there really doesn't need to be anything much left of her.

* Which is not necessarily the part including her head. She's yet to be fully decapitated as of Conclave present day, but it's going to be a bit of a surprise for her when she does; probably waking up completely bald (her hair grows fast, but nowhere near as fast as her regeneration) with her own head in her lap.

Quote
Maybe a Deamonhost with Impervious if only due to the +10points to injury total cap on single hits and that each hit would only do one level of injury. though I suspect your VMB will do multiple hits per attack  or possibly something with Instability cast at the time of attack maybe*
Well, as far as the Daemonhost, none of Leander's main weapons do single hits.

The Plasma blastgun is a blast weapon, as is the Turbo-Laser* (although not a standard fit-out), and the Inferno gun (again not standard) is a flamer. And then the Vulcan is a full auto blast weapon** and would need all*** the dice if I were to use standard shooting rules.

* While it is a purely energy weapon (unlike the Plasma cannon, it's firing no actual physical matter) and the beam diameter isn't that great, that much energy is going to explosively vaporise the point of impact. (Even so, my version is still more restrained than the WH40K version, which I believe gets a 5" template)
** The Solemne pattern Vulcan fires a different round to the Mars pattern it was originally based off, both with a much higher muzzle velocity and with a fuse that's capable of various airburst, delayed detonation or standard impact. The downside is a much lower ammunition capacity (~5000 rounds rather than ~14000), but when I was writing the fluff the effects of a self-propelled variant of the Bofors 3P ammunition loaded into the GAU-8 Avenger sounded sufficiently over the top to be a titan weapon.
*** Not literally. But it'd still be a lot.


Quote
*not trying to powergame it just genuinely interested in how you are going to stat her.
Mostly, I'm not. Her power is so arbitrarily high that she's functionally invincible in game. Her armour can shrug off anti-tank munitions (and that's even if you get past the void shields) and her main guns can turn Land Raiders to molten slag. Trying to telepathically influence Helane is to try to control one of the strongest-willed people in the Imperium, plus open your mind to a furiously powerful machine intellect.

She is both immovable object and unstoppable force. The vast majority of the rules writing I've done is just an exercise in curiosity. Most of them I don't expect to use in game (other than perhaps the suggestions about what happens to characters who try and expose their mind to a Titan's machine spirit, which I'm guessing someone will try at some point).

Quote
Thanks for the help and the fascinating discussion about hypervelocity BB guns. As a marshal at my local site I can SAFELY SAY that doesn't pass chrono even with an MED!  ;D
Well, you couldn't pick it up on a standard chrony anyway. Aside from that the chrony would probably discard a velocity that high as erroneous, the muzzle flash is a huge plume of optically dense plasma that most chronies couldn't see through.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: TallulahBelle on July 26, 2016, 09:48:47 AM
GAU-8 firing bofors 3P at 4-6000rpm... That's something il see in my nightmares thanks for that.

The intelectual curiosity side of the argument appeals to me and... As for open ng your mind bearing in mind there are cases known of Warhounds consuming the mind of their princeps and over time a titans machine spirit begins to influence your actions as you spend more and more time connected you start thinking of you the titan and you the person as the same thing. Based on that a titans machine spirit will or could possibly possess people whether they could control the person in anyway or its just a means means for the dominant mind control of the titan isn't something im sure of. Machine empathy could go... Badly. Whether that's an immortal god engine of war has control of your character or your characters head has had egg in a microwave experience is up for conjecture.


I get what your saying about the armpur dissolving being not a riot weapon thing but.. Iv had to tone it down to get it usable and based on the description would probably have that affect on metal plus it would give people in INQ a reason to back off put of range ro represent my fear of the weapon idea through RP.  and well I think the imperium is probably a dark enough place that spraying a few thousand outerhive scum or a few thousand mutants with a weapon that causes chemical burns and eats through your lungs wouldn't be an put of the norm response tp the rioting and the shock value of watching the bloke next to ypu puke up parts of his lungs as he dies on a pool pf bile blood and a burning stench would probably co vince ypu to STFU and do as your told.



Now chronoing your hypervelocity bb gun I would probably just use the chrono we have set up for gas multishot shotguns abd P* guns where like the air rifles ypu shoot through the chrono from a 3' distance away accounting for the gas venting and similar. We use the same chrono redwood airsoft use in their videos for that type of gun. Still a hypervelocity airsoft rifle would be great for non hit takers .... That's probably legally a firearm in the uk being something in the region of 44 ft/lb of energy and so a sec1 firearm unless its semi auto then its sec5 that's terrifying and kind of cool. The energy cost per shot must be huge compared to a standard chemical detonation if I remember anything from gcse physics.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: Raghnall on July 26, 2016, 03:12:39 PM
I plan on revisiting the fear system in IRE to try to more accurately establish why characters are scary.
- If the character has a dangerous reputation, then any Nerve tests he causes have a penalty.
- If a character is just straight up unnerving to be around, then other characters take a hit to their Nv in the vicinity, regardless of the source.
- If a character is scary because he can obviously tear you limb from limb if you get too close, then getting or staying close inside his melee range requires a Nv test. (Think how the Fearsome/Terrifying rules actually work, rather than how they're usually applied. Expect to see this on characters like Space Marines and Orks. In this case, the cancellation makes sense, as that big burly Ork has a lot less reason to be scared of charging a Space Marine than a Guardsman does).
The likes of Simo Hayha (a Finnish sniper with over 500 confirmed kills) are certainly scary, and when scaled up to 40k levels, it's perfectly possible to see how someone could qualify for something like that through reputation. However it does seem strange that people would be overly keen to get away from him. I'd feel much better in arms reach of him, where I can see him. Definitely seems a good idea to have the effect depend on the source.

(A scientist develops a chemical that can dissolve anything. What does he keep it in?).
Just dig a hole and let New Zealand take care of it. Not our problem.

As far as Jax, dying stops her regeneration on game timescales. Her blood is a catalyst for her regeneration, so extreme bloodloss or damage to the heart or brain slows her regeneration to less than 1% of its normal rate. That said, her regeneration is still a very formidable warp-fueled effect. I'm not quite sure I'd call it psychic, as it's an unconscious effect with no apparent mechanism (making it somewhat akin to Crotalid migration), but she routinely breaches conservation of mass by regrowing large parts of her body, and her soul and mind seem to remain entirely intact through death.
(It also serves as a limiting factor that stops her lost body parts trying to regenerate into clones of her. In cases of massive trauma, her regeneration seems to mostly work on the largest remaining part*).
Out of curiosity, what would it take to kill her permanently? Cremation? A force weapon? An Alpha Plus Psyker? Throwing her into a star? A black hole? I mean, the last one certainly seems like a sure fire way to stop her been a threat anymore.

Trying to telepathically influence Helane is to try to control one of the strongest-willed people in the Imperium, plus open your mind to a furiously powerful machine intellect.
There are plenty of problems with Abnett's work, but I rather like the scene in Hereticus where they try to shut down a titan psychically. Apart from the concept of using a runestaff to enhance a null, which seems a bit strange.

Quote
'We use it to boost our collaborating minds. Force a way into the machine's consciousness.'
'Indeed. And then?'
I glanced over at Alizebeth. 'The Madam Bequin takes hold of the runestaff and delivers her untouchable blankness into the heart of it.'
'Will that work?' Kara Swole asked.
There was a long pause.
Bequin looked at me and then at Rassi. 'I don't know. Will it?'
'I don't know either,' I said. 'But I think it's the best chance we have.'
Raise breathed deeply. 'So be it. I don't see another hope, not even a remote one. Let's get on with it.'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the rank confines of the chapel, Bequin leapt forward and grabbed the runestaff from the hands of two inquisitors who were quivering with power, stress and terror, our eyes rolled up blankly so that only the whites showed. She gripped the runestaff, focused her untouchable force and-

She was killed.
Not at once of course. The backrip of the Titan's terrible sentience tore into her, overwhelmed her untouchable quality by dint of its sheer force, and broke her mind. Electrical discharge crackled down the shaft of my runestaff, throwing Rassi and myself away and blasting Alizebeth back across the chapel. The scorch marks are still visible on the uncorruptible: the perfectly etched fingerprints of Poul Rassi, Gregor Eisenhorn and Alizebeth Bequin. Nayl told me afterwards that the psychic recoil had tossed Rassi and myself to either side like dolls, but the main force had been directed at Bequin. She had flown though the air a dozen metres, her cloak fluttering out and cracked off the back wall of the chapel with a sound that Nayl knew meant snapping bones.

Certainly not something to be advised.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: MarcoSkoll on July 27, 2016, 09:56:46 PM
GAU-8 firing bofors 3P at 4-6000rpm... That's something il see in my nightmares thanks for that.
As much as I love the visual design of titans, there are various elements I wanted to add up slightly more.

The Vulcan has at times been described as a very inaccurate and indiscriminate weapon, which to me sounded wrong for a weapon that will frequently be required to engage varied targets at ranges of multiple kilometres using a limited onboard ammunition capacity.
Hence, I re-imagined the Solemne variants of the Vulcan as much more precise and versatile weapons than the Mars Pattern they're based off. (Albeit also cutting the ammunition capacity further, but I wanted it to actually fire believably sized rounds and have a capacity that could feasibly be loaded into the ammunition hoppers).

In my head, a skilled Titan crew would be capable of putting together complex firing solutions that make full use of the multi-fuse and the high rate of fire to rapidly eliminate mixed enemy formations. For example, a solution could use direct hits against armoured vehicles combined with airbursts at varied distances to maximise the per-round lethality versus supporting infantry. The Solemne MkVIII Vulcan is capable of anything up to 4,020 rpm, so a ~1 second burst can put around sixty rounds down-range (there is some spool-up time), enough to combat a pretty large threat before they really have any chance to react (and with considerably more precision than a conventional artillery strike).

Quote
well I think the imperium is probably a dark enough place that spraying a few thousand outerhive scum or a few thousand mutants with a weapon that causes chemical burns and eats through your lungs wouldn't be an put of the norm response
While I agree that the Imperium probably has some very dark responses to riots, indiscriminately spraying around highly corrosive acids in the ramshackle, barely-held together heap of junk that is a hive sounds a little off to me. Generally, it's better when entire districts don't have a rusted-through colander for a floor.

Quote
That's probably legally a firearm in the uk
The guy in question is Canadian, but if it were in the UK, it probably wouldn't be a firearm, despite the muzzle energy being somewhere over 400 ft-lbs.

A prosecutor would have a very hard time arguing that a semi-immobile combination of large capacitor banks, high current cabling and a reinforced steel chamber (that has to be completely unbolted and partially rebuilt after each shot) was intended (or could even be used) as a weapon, which is a key part of the definition of what's counted as a firearm.

It's probably more accurately considered like the various air cannons and light gas guns in UK universities (used for impact simulation), which don't get considered as firearms simply because you couldn't practically shoot anyone with them.

Out of curiosity, what would it take to kill her permanently?
Broadly the same kind of thing that it would take to kill a daemon prince permanently. Basically, extreme psychic damage.

Her immortality, while she's not a psyker, is all still eventually tied into her soul serving as the fuel, mechanism and blueprint to restore her physical form. So it ultimately comes down to what methods work for destroying a soul powerful enough that it can remain coherent without a physical body.

Of course, aside from that being no mean feat itself (Lexicanum's list is probably not exhaustive, but it only lists three daemons known or believed to have suffered true death), this is all out-of-character information. In-universe, the limits of her regeneration are much more poorly studied and understood (even by herself, let alone her enemies) than the vulnerabilities of daemons.

Quote
There are plenty of problems with Abnett's work, but I rather like the scene in Hereticus where they try to shut down a titan psychically. Apart from the concept of using a runestaff to enhance a null, which seems a bit strange.
Certainly not something to be advised.
Well, Cruor Vult is an extreme example, being at least corrupted (if not outright possessed) and with a data-link saturated with the taint of millennia of horrific acts and twisted pilots.

Leander's link is probably a bit more vulnerable and probably wouldn't have quite such devastating feedback, but it's clearly not going to be a massive weak spot. I might reward a suitably creative solution with some disruption of the link, but I can promise that any uninspired attempts to use Puppet Master on Helane and thus take control of a Titan are not going to go well.
Title: Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
Post by: TallulahBelle on July 28, 2016, 06:46:06 PM
that makes sense for the Vulcan and the power of the titan being able to use its weapons to best effect I cant see a titans Vulcan megabolter just dumping rounds.

For the BaneTorch I can see it being used in a crowded open space type situation of a gathering in a main square rather than the crowded hive area and would assume that stone or other building materials would be too thick or the wrong material to dissolve or for there to be some sort of easily deployed clean up agent post riot.

Yeah I see your point about the weapon requirement but it would have to go to court to pass the not a weapon exemption and wouldn't be something I'd bet on personally. Its an impressive piece of engineering.

As for the titan I'd honestly try for something like massive data overload to fry the link rather than a puppet master approach