Rules for ''droids''???

[mattausten86]

Ive found  the 3 jacks from the cygnar starter set,lying about gathering dust,so i thought id try and make them fit into my 2nd inquisitor warband(not the one going to the IGT).

My question is how would i write a character sheet for them,i was thinking about using the chrono-gladiator rules,but these are full on robots!!

The concept of the warband is a rogue battle engineer(the slick model,that will be attending the IGT)a ad mech model and the 3 'jacks''


cheers
matt

[Charax]

I wrote some rules for robots a while ago.

Little tip: Never have a programmer write rules for robots. It's insane

[Adlan]

Leave all the details about controls and Programs to roleplaying it. That should make it a lot simpler.

[MarcoSkoll]

Well, if you want my opinion, I don't think warjacks would be quite right used straight up. While they share a lot with earlier dreadnought and titan designs, they're quite distinctively Privateer Press, and would need work to make them less so.

Given the heretical nature of AI in the GrimDark, they probably wouldn't be actual robots, more likely some form of servitor - and I'd really suggest converting them into chronogladiators or servitors of some sort rather than trying to use them as robots.

[InquisitorHeidfeld]

Abominable Intelligence =/= Robots

The Corteces of the Legio Cybernetica Robots in particular cannot be described as intelligent, clever yes, but less intelligent than the machine spirits of (for example) Land Raiders.

The difficulty with Robots in Inquisitor is that they aren't adaptable, they can tell friend from foe but their actions are entirely restricted to their program... While that is suitable for a straight battle game it's more tricky for a more fluid game like Inquisitor where the two sides do not necessarily start on opposite sides of the board and try to kill each other... where they may not even start on opposite sides...

I don't roll my robots out very often - mostly because a Maniple of Cataphracts and Conquerors are more detrimental to a straight up fight than a whole squad of Marines. When I do however I still go back to the rules from the 40k Companion (Compendium?... The red one  ).
Generally they will feature outside the scene, they'll perhaps be assaulting a site believed to be a cult HQ in order to draw forces away from the event about which the real action is taking place.
They're also difficult to deploy, even the Crusaders are something of the order of three meters in height and not exactly easy to smuggle past inter-planetary customs 

Charax - are your rules designed for Legio Cybernetica robots or more abominable versions? If the former then I'd be interested to see them.

[MarcoSkoll]

Abominable Intelligence =/= Robots

While that might be obvious to us, the AdMech have some funny ideas.

Anything solely mechanical with a semblance of actual reasoning power (as opposed to being just a straight number cruncher) runs the risk of being declared heretical, which is why most actually sophisticated Machine Spirits (such as, I believe, that of the Land Raider) include a number of organic parts - and why the Admech go to the additional trouble of interfacing man/machine and reprogramming brains to create servitors rather than just straight up robots.

For the most part, Servitors probably could just be made as robots, as they don't possess actual AI - but they aren't, because the AdMech just has a heap of dogma and prejudice that dictates the inclusion of organic parts.
As I figure it, even something as relatively thick and unintelligent as a Cyber Mastiff probably isn't solely machine.

[Ynek]

As I figure it, even something as relatively thick and unintelligent as a Cyber Mastiff probably isn't solely machine.

I always thought of them as mostly-mechanical servitors with (at least some components of) a canine brain in them somewhere.

On the subject of rules for robots, I think that it would mostly come down to sensible roleplaying. For instance - a robot programmed to kill might not be programmed to open doors, pick up valuable objectives, take prisoners for interrogation, perform interrogations, shout warnings to the warband when he sees an unseen threat closing in on them, and would just end up staring at such features for several minutes in a "DOES NOT COMPUTE" fashion.

Perhaps say something like they have one 'core function'. This could be prisoner capturing, killing, playing the harp, or whatever you like. The robot has a 'programming quality' stat, which is worked out as detailed below. Every time they attempt an action which is not directly related to it's core function (I.E. If their function is to kill, then any action they take other than moving towards a target or attacking it) will require them to test on their programming quality. If failed, their programmer has failed to forsee this event happening, and has failed to program a suitable response in the robot. The robot performs no further actions this turn.

So, for instance, a killer robot is attempting to fire it's gun twice, then climb a ladder twice and fire again from the top. It rolls it's actions, and finds that it can perform all of them. However, climbing a ladder is not it's core function, so it must pass a programming quality test. It fails. So, it fires it's gun twice, but does not climb the ladder. Instead, it stands at the bottom like a sack full of bricks, stuck in a loop for a few seconds.

To work out the programming quality, specify which character programmed each robot, and roll a separate sagacity check against that character's sagacity for each robot. Whatever you pass the sagacity test by is the robot's programming quality. Of course, a failed sagacity check means that the robot has been exceptionally poorly programmed, and has absolutely no chance of succeeding in any action outside of it's core function. Alternatively, you could say that a failed sagacity check means that the robot was not programmed in time for the mission, and had to be left back at the hideout, or perhaps the programmer was too busy attending to other things and was not able to even start working on the robot. ('other things' such as tending to his shattered skull from the last battle...)

[MarcoSkoll]

I always thought of them as mostly-mechanical servitors with (at least some components of) a canine brain in them somewhere.

Pretty much what I thought.

Every time they attempt an action which is not directly related to it's core function (I.E. If their function is to kill, then any action they take other than moving towards a target or attacking it) will require them to test on their programming quality.

Sounds like an interesting idea - and also would work great for servitors.

However, I would suggest the GM use a heap of modifiers. Having to climb ladders or stairs is a reasonably foreseeable event, so I'd suggest a nice healthy bonus to tests for that.
On the other end of the scale though, having it analyse the workings of a generatorium so it can work out which pipe it needs to rupture to stop the steam flow to the main turbines is probably rather less foreseeable, so minus modifiers for that one.

Additionally, you could also rule that tasks outside its core programming are also Risky Actions. Even if it passes the required programming test, a Risky Action means it stalls while it loads that subroutine into main memory.

Another idea that comes to me is that you roll the Sg test for the programmer, and you trade in Programming stat for its core functions (the cost of each function is up to the GM). So, rather than a "Jack of all trades, Master of None" servitor, you can give it "Mastery" of some areas at the cost of overall versatility.

So let's say your Tech Adept passes by a very generous 62 when programming your gun servitor. He spends 20 points for its main targetting algorithms, then another 10 points on more complex basic movements (such as running, climbing "spiral" staircases, etc), leaving it with a final programming stat of 32.

This would also mean that a servitor/robot with a more complex core task would have to spend more points and thus become more specialised. (A medical servitor capable of brain surgery would need more programming than one which just has to recognise its boss and keep a pict-recorder trained on him).

... Actually, I think there could be a Dark Magenta article in this.

[Ynek]

Another idea that comes to me is that you roll the Sg test for the programmer, and you trade in Programming stat for its core functions (the cost of each function is up to the GM). So, rather than a "Jack of all trades, Master of None" servitor, you can give it "Mastery" of some areas at the cost of overall versatility.

I like the idea of spending Programming stat points to improve the robot's chances of succeeding in certain actions. Although throwing responsibility for choosing the costs of certain functions to the GM could be problematic in certain circumstances. (Such as the GM not being familiar with these robot rules.) It might be more sensible to make some sort of guideline table in the spirit of keeping things (reasonably) comprehensive.

Perhaps the more points you spend on a singular function, the better the unit gets at it. For instance, for every 10 points you spend on 'mastering' it's shooting ability, the robot gains +20 ballistic skill (I'd imagine that it's BS would start at about 0... Which fits fine, really. After all, the robot's skill with a weapon is entirely dependent upon it's programming, and if it has not been programmed to shoot, a BS of 0 is what's to be expected.)

Perhaps all the robot's mental stats should start at 0, and then be 'bought up' with programming points. Sagacity, for instance, would be improved by programming the robot with advanced reasoning and analytical abilties. Willpower could be improved by incorporating anti-psychic catechisms and wards into the very programming itself. Nerve would probably be a non-issue, but a robot could be programmed with self-preservation, so perhaps Nerve should work in the inverse - you spend 10 points to give it a nerve characteristic (In the case of robots, I think that they should auto-pass all nerve tests unless programmed to save their own skins.) Initiative would probably be a bit of a dirty chicken, though, since it represents both the speed of the programming's ability to assess and react to a situation, and also the general speed of the physical 'body' of the machine. Leadership, on the other hand would probably stay permenantly at 0.

I like the idea of 'buying' the machine's mental stats in such a manner, in addition to it's programming-based skills and abilities. (Such as improved friend/foe recognition, uneven terrain compensation, climbing ability etc.)

This would make for a highly adaptable (yet also quite unreliable, depending on the skill of the programmer) robo-character.

... Actually, I think there could be a Dark Magenta article in this.

Indeed, expanding upon this idea could lead to a fairly interesting Dark Magenta article.

[MarcoSkoll]

It might be more sensible to make some sort of guideline table in the spirit of keeping things (reasonably) comprehensive.

Which again sounds like the kind of thing a DM article could handle. But the GM would of course get final say (as is always the way, of course), particularly if it's some as of yet unforeseen idea.

There is the potential worry that people might misinterpret it as somewhat like the Ready Reckoner, in that it's the whole "Spend points on character traits" dohickey, but I think that given that it's used to spend a random number of points it should avoid the risk of coming across as a "balance system".

Perhaps the more points you spend on a singular function, the better the unit gets at it.

Which also sounds good, but I'd borrow from DH here and make it so that subsequent "upgrades" increase in cost. Basic skill levels are cheap, but mastery takes a lot of effort.

Sagacity, for instance, would be improved by programming the robot with advanced reasoning and analytical abilties.

Perhaps it would be simplest to consolidate the "Programming tests" into its Sg value. So in the case of "Outside core functions", it has to take an Sg test to continue.

It would seem fair enough to make Sg its general ability to reason outside its normal skill set.

Initiative would probably be a bit of a dirty chicken, though, since it represents both the speed of the programming's ability to assess and react to a situation, and also the general speed of the physical 'body' of the machine.

I'm not sure about that being a particular problem. The body can act no faster than the mind after all, and if the program takes its sweet time to figure it's a good idea to walk over the other side of the street, then it doesn't matter if the body could've sprinted over there in an instant.

I'd say assume Initiative is the overall elegance and efficiency of the programming. Doing something with a hundred lines of code rather than a thousand, debugging - that kind of thing.
And I'd say that works okay for awareness too. If it's eating up processor cycles with slow and buggy code, then its sensory input analysis is going to go downhill as well.

So Initiative represents how elegant its code is and Sagacity how versatile the code is.

~~~~~

It needs more thought, I'm sure, but I'm starting to like it as an idea.

[Ynek]

So Initiative represents how elegant its code is and Sagacity how versatile the code is.

Well, that certainly streamlines things rather nicely. ^_^

[Aurelius 12]

I like it all so far. The only problem I forsee is how many points a programmer is likely to pass the initial test by in the first place. If he passes by 8 points say then that's going to be one dumb droid! If this extends to servitors too then things like Praetorians etc. are going to need a fairly high BS/WS one would imagine. I'd suggest something like base stats with the programming building on top of them, but that's just going back to normal character creation almost!

[Frostspear]

What about just using the programmers Sagacity value as opposed to making a skill check? Along with appropriate modifiers, of course.

Still almost entirely dependant upon the programmer, but keeps it more consistent and might better represent programming ability rather than the chance of randomly punching in a code that works.

[DapperAnarchist]

A bit of Dark Millenium  - the Cybermastiff could be a totally mechanical being, as it is mimicking the intelligence of an animal, not the holy mind of a human. This explains the bear/wolf/grox minds referenced in the background of Titans as well.

[InquisitorHeidfeld]

The Robots of the Legio Cybernetica are dumber than rocks, they are in no way impinging on the dogma regarding Abominable Intelligence.

Their programs were a flow chart of OR gates and although "enemy" was something which they could distinguish easily enough they were hardly great conversationalists.
"Are there enemy models within 'x' inches?" "Yes: Fire weapons at enemy models" "No: Move towards enemy models"

The fluff is mixed on the Machine Spirit but given the horrendous ages of some of the Land Raiders still in service today, let alone some of the Titans, I would have to come down on the side of non-organic technology...
Land Raiders have conversations with each other but even then they are not as much a part of the history of a Marine Chapter as their Dreadnaughts (for example). I would suggest therefore that they are not mimicing human minds, Predator and Razorback Machine Spirits are even easier to separate, whether their "intelligences" are based on animal minds or (as the STC idea has become all pervassive) they are simply based on their own mind (a Land Raider Machine Spirit being based purely on a Land Raider's machine spirit) doesn't matter, they're accepted because they always have been...