Author Topic: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury  (Read 84272 times)

Offline Drubbels

  • Interrogator
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #165 on: January 06, 2013, 09:36:44 AM »
Just a random idea, but had you considered adding some kind of psyker/daemon-finding gunsight?
Previously "Adeptus Noob"

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5063
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #166 on: June 21, 2013, 04:49:39 PM »
Howdy chaps.

Here's the Beta version of v5-4 of the Revised Inquisitor Armoury.

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.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Gilleon

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #167 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.

Offline Koval

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Well, that was unexpected...
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #168 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.

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5063
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #169 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.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Koval

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Well, that was unexpected...
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #170 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

Offline Gilleon

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #171 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.

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5063
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #172 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.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Gilleon

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #173 on: July 17, 2013, 10:01:07 PM »
I genuinely feel bad now  :-\

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5063
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #174 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...
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Gilleon

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #175 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.

Offline Draco Ferox

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #176 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.
Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5063
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #177 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.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Koval

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Well, that was unexpected...
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #178 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.

Offline Gilleon

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #179 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.