Author Topic: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury  (Read 90830 times)

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5088
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #30 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.
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

Chaospling

  • Guest
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #31 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.

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5088
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #32 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.
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

Chaospling

  • Guest
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #33 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.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2009, 10:58:01 PM by Chaospling »

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5088
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #34 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...
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 MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5088
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #35 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.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2009, 01:00:20 AM by MarcoSkoll »
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline N01H3r3

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
  • Long Ago and Far Away
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #36 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.
Contributing Writer for many Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay books, including Black Crusade

Professional Games Designer.

Offline Inquisitor Cade

  • Inquisitor Lord
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #37 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!
*Insert token witticism*

Lorddarigarn

  • Guest
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #38 on: September 28, 2009, 05:07:02 PM »
If it's still wanted, I have that article saved to my laptop.

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5088
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #39 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.
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 Inquisitor Cade

  • Inquisitor Lord
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #40 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.

*Insert token witticism*

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5088
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #41 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)
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 Inquisitor Cade

  • Inquisitor Lord
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #42 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.

*Insert token witticism*

Offline N01H3r3

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
  • Long Ago and Far Away
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #43 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.
Contributing Writer for many Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay books, including Black Crusade

Professional Games Designer.

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5088
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: The Revised Inquisitor Armoury
« Reply #44 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.
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