The Revised Inquisitor Armoury

[Koval]

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?

[MarcoSkoll]

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.

Did I miss something, or do las weapons not have attached rarities?

At present, they don't.

[Koval]

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.

[Zakkeg]

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.

[MarcoSkoll]

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.

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.

You didn't mention that explosive needle rounds glow like tracers, for example

Good point. Added into the file for the next revision.

[Zakkeg]

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!

[MarcoSkoll]

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:


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.

[Zakkeg]

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.

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.

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.

[MarcoSkoll]

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".

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).

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

[Zakkeg]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

[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...

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...

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.)

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.

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.

...I'll give it a think.

Job's a good 'un.

[Koval]

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:".

[MarcoSkoll]

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.

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.

[Zakkeg]

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...)

[Koval]

(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

[Zakkeg]

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.