Main Menu

News:

If you are having problems registering, please e-mail theconclaveforum at gmail.com

The Revised Inquisitor Armoury

Started by MarcoSkoll, August 02, 2009, 06:26:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Koval

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 unless you're a servitor. :P

Quickdraw McGraw

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?
Every time I see a math word problem in the warp it looks like this: 

If I have 10 ice cubes and you have 11 apples. How many pancakes will fit on the roof?

Answer:  Purple because Tyranids don't wear hats.   :P

MarcoSkoll

#152
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).
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

Quickdraw McGraw

#153
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.
Every time I see a math word problem in the warp it looks like this: 

If I have 10 ice cubes and you have 11 apples. How many pancakes will fit on the roof?

Answer:  Purple because Tyranids don't wear hats.   :P

MarcoSkoll

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)
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

Radu Lykan

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

MarcoSkoll

#156
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):


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...
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

Radu Lykan


Drubbels

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
Previously "Adeptus Noob"

MarcoSkoll

Quote from: Adeptus Noob on December 30, 2012, 05:23:20 PM-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).

QuoteI 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.

QuoteAside 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.)
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

Drubbels

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.
Previously "Adeptus Noob"

Koval

Quote from: Adeptus Noob on January 03, 2013, 02:46:03 PMI 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)

MarcoSkoll

Quote from: Adeptus Noob on January 03, 2013, 02:46:03 PMI 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.

QuoteHave you considered including them in the next version of the RIA?
Already got some notes in my WIP file.
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

Drubbels

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)?
Previously "Adeptus Noob"

MarcoSkoll

Quote from: Adeptus Noob on January 04, 2013, 11:45:14 PMAlso, 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.
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