[MarcoSkoll]

For the purposes of repopulating the forum, the link to my Revised Inquisitor Armoury project:

Last version: Version 5.6.1 (Updated: 16th November 2016)

[Aidan]

Hi Marco, good to see the project back up here. I don't go to warseer (I don't like registering on too many forums) so I've been cut off from this a bit. A friend of mine sent me the new 3rd alpha release though.

I congratulate you on integrating bolt weapons into the list with some interesting new types too, and somewhat regulating the power of bolt weapons so that even stingy GMs like me might condone their use. I will certainly be handing out a few 'uncommon' ones to high-end mooks, in the future.

Revised faulty ammunition looks good. *Begins cackling evily*

With regards to 'amour piercing' standard ammunition, from a purely mechanical perspective I prefer you old rules - ie. rounding DOWN. The benefit was more limited, but then is was not clearly superior to normal ammunition. The big change here comes that AP rounds are as good as normal rounds against armour 2, which is my standard for poorly-equipped mooks. I suppose it's up to the individual GM though, and what kind of armour they give out. Either I'll keep rounding down or I'll use the new rules but just change the maths slightly when it comes to armour 2.

Some of the new ammo types are really crazy out there - (yes, HEIAP, I'm looking at you!) - but i suppose they might have some application. But mostly, these are going to be really abused by destruction-crazed GMs out there. Nice ideas, anyhow.

Finally, the new availability classifications are nice. I might start applying these to everything.

-Aidan.

[MarcoSkoll]

I don't go to warseer (I don't like registering on too many forums) so I've been cut off from this a bit.

Sorry about that. Membership of multiple forums isn't everyone's cup of tea, I know.
But that's where the community mostly ended up, so that's where I followed.

I congratulate you on integrating bolt weapons into the list with some interesting new types too

The new types was something I was a bit hesitant about - I thought they made some sense, but I didn't know how people would react to me nudging around in an area quite strongly occupied by canon. Responses seem more positive than anything else, which is a pleasant enough surprise.

I'd note that ironically, the "Uncommon" bolt weapons are probably fewer in number than the "Rare" ones, because they're mostly custom built or modified. However, they are easier to build and get hold of - as well as costing a great deal less. So "Availability" is probably a better word than "Rarity", but it'll do.

The exact design of these, being custom jobs, is up to you. But I half had this (also a custom one-off, as far as I know) in mind for the bolt cycler, but possibly not in a bullpup configuration.

And somewhat regulating the power of bolt weapons so that even stingy GMs like me might condone their use.

Bear in mind, the Weapon Handling rules are intended to be part of the bolt weapon rein-in. It'll still work without using them, but the rule is there to make the Enc stat mean more.

Revised faulty ammunition looks good. *Begins cackling evily*

You'll note that I've tied a lot of failures to rolling a 5 on the units dice on the D100 - I intend to move a lot of what I've written for simplicity as "Risky Actions" onto a similar system.

It was somewhat inspired by Robey's Inq2 risky action system, but in the interests of saving on dice throws, I just tied it to the result of a dice that was already being used.

With regards to 'amour piercing' standard ammunition, from a purely mechanical perspective I prefer you old rules - ie. rounding DOWN.

That's a subject of debate - some people like it that way, some seem to think that it should be upgraded. I did prefer it originally, but people seemed to think that it didn't have the low end performance.

But then again, it wasn't really supposed to have low end performance - it's about trade-offs. I may change it back.

Some of the new ammo types are really crazy out there.

HEIAP is designed to be crazy out there. That's mostly for GMs who need to be very, very violent to a character, probably some form of Space Marine.
I don't expect it will see much use, and it shouldn't, but it's just something to throw in.

The new varieties are all however real world ammunition types.

Finally, the new availability classifications are nice. I might start applying these to everything.

Feel free to, that's the intent. It's something like my theories on D&D's alignment system* - basically, the original version was too simplified for my tastes.
*Which I should note, I am still writing up, under the rough title "Character motivations".

Sometimes, simple is too simple. Really, the only level I've really added is "Uncommon" (I won't be using "Unique", that's more for others to use), and it's opened up the system a lot.

[Inquisitor Cade]

First of all I'm improting the leftover thoughts that I posted on warseer so you can see everyting for your considerations without having to flick back and forth. Then there are some more thoughts I've had since.

Dust King suggested a tracer beacon round

I'd suggest doing 2d6 damage, if it penetrates armour then the target becomes visible on auspex, if it hits and fails to penetrate armour then there is a 75% chance that it becomes stuck in the armour. If the target is being followed closely (GM's discretion) then they can take a Sg test to notice the tracker. to remove it is two actions and D3 to the injury total (unless it was in armour)

I had quite a few ideas.

I don't M249's are that heavy, I'd suggest mid-heavy stubbers have Enc 50.

I'd give plasma pistols semi(2) and maybe increase the semi values of the other plasma weapons by one. This would make the most of the malfunction chart, and I see no reason for plasma pistols to be incapable of semi auto fire.

I'd make the Magnum Enc 20. As big as Deagles are they aren't bolt pistols.

I'd make plasma pistol 5 Enc higher than bolt pistols rather than the same.

A few weapons that I think should be represented:

A smaller bolt pistol with a much smaller mag and less enc

An LSW type weapon, a long, heavy barreled assault rifle

I'd make the At-Snc Rifle and carbine Uncm as well as the PDW pistol and the high calibre carbine.

I'd make the bullpup auto shotgun Rld 3.

I'd make the semi auto sniper and possibly the precision sniper rare.

By you definition of rare as military issue and exotic as special military issue I'd concider making bolters exotic.

I'd increase the reload for heavy stubbers to 6 (I assume the are belt fed from a drum)

I'd give heavy bolters a full auto setting

As the rules stand Ap bullets give no advantage against standard (flak AV3) or reinforced (AV4) armour. How often would the sort of person who wouldn't have access to a more restricted round need a bullet that is only of worth against heavy armour?

The machine pistols and micro smg are more or less auto pistols, so I remain convinced that they at least should be common. Regular smg's too if you ask me.

Another idea. The ripper gun is clearly defined in the new guard codex as an almost unbreakable auto combat shotgun. I think you should add this to your list. I'd have thought

basic . J . Single/semi(2/4). -10% . D6+3 (hits D3 locations) . 20 . 8(belt fed). 55 . rare

I'd imagine that they would use a larger size scatter shot round, with maybe range J and D6+3 damage per hit. It wouldn't be suitable in smalller shotguns and conversly wouldn't be able to use other types of ammo.

The light compact stubber is more powerful (and no lighter) than the regular compact stubber. This seems the wrong way around.

The high power stubber is less damaging (on average) that the heavy duty stubber. Is that right?

The rifle carbine is powerful, long ranged and fully automatic. It too should Uncm, particularly if any smg's are Uncm.

I'd give the medium assault rifle full( as a middle ground between the light and heavy versions.

[MarcoSkoll]

Actually, I've got almost all of that stuff saved off-line.

- The two Compact Stubbers are similar in combat effectiveness, so applying "light" to one or the other was somewhat arbitrary. I went for the one that had the lesser magazine size and range band.

- The Hi-Power Stubber is less powerful on average by only a small fraction. Nonetheless, a fair point, it should come in higher.

- I've already pointed out that the rarities were a bit of a bodge job when I did them. It was more to give an idea of the system, rather than being hard and fast rules. Quite a few will be changing, you can assume that.

- I'll take it you meant Full (8) - A reasonable suggestion, without the unintentional emoticon.

I'd increase the reload for heavy stubbers to 6 (I assume the are belt fed from a drum)

I can tell you're not doing a direct copy. You said 8 the first time.

[Inquisitor Cade]

Yeah, I edited my post for context and as a result of your initial feedback. I left out ideas that you had refuted.

e.g. Me: How can drilling shotguns shouldn't have Mn(3), it's outrageous blah blah blah.
You: They have 3 barrels.
Me: Oh right.

When it comes to reloading, I've always thought it could be better. At OTC ammunition pouches are the bane of my existence. Also as we are edging towards making shooting more effective compared to close combat, emphasizing reload times up would not only make it more realistic, but also restore some balance.
My theory is that 1 action should be added to the beginning of reloading, representing getting out the fresh ammunition, the reload time on the weapon profile is used for how long it takes to change mags/powercells/etc over and then one action to put the old magazine away. This last action can be skipped for revolvers and most other manual guns, and also if the character just chucks the spent mag rather than stowing it. You could also have the situation where a sniper is in position and takes out several reloads in one action so he can reload faster, or a soldier taping two mags togetherer in order to quicken his first reload.

Sorry about the emoticon, glad you could read between the shades.

[MarcoSkoll]

Actually, your point on Drilling Shotguns was still important - it reminded me that I needed to actually explain them.

Aside from some explanation, I've changed the name to Dreiling Shotguns. It might not be the modern form of the word, but it is at least the origin (From the German Drei - for three), is somewhat more intuitive and will avoid confusion with forms of military drilling.

~~~~~

As far as reloading, I'm not going to try and rewrite those rules. This is an equipment list, not "Marco Skoll's Inquisitor v1.5"
Okay, I wrote the (recommended) Weapon Handling rules along with a couple of small alterations, but that's as far as I want to go.

[Kaled]

I've downloaded this, and previous versions, of your revised armoury but I don't think I've ever commented up until now...

The big problem I see is not the actual weapon profiles, which seem fine, but the lack of explanation and fluff.  Calling it a 'Dreiling Shotgun' is fine, but it'd be better if it was a Callington 34 'Dreiling' Shotgun commonly used by the Red Spyders gang on Telios II...  At the minute it's just a list of profiles with no flavour - as such it seems, well, a little pointless.  It's easy enough to make a more powerful revolver, or a more accurate stubber or whatever.  Thus I think it the weapon profiles need to me made more than just different profiles - they need to be brought into the 41st millenium; to give people an idea of what these weapons are, where they're made, who might use them etc.  I'd suggest spending some time on this aspect of things before covering more weapon types - it could make a great article for DM if it were done like a gunsmith's sales pitch or a 'Guns & Ammo' buyers guide.

I really like the different ammo types though, and some of the special rules are great, but again they could do with some more fluff to really make them fit into the 40k universe.

[MarcoSkoll]

I will admit to all charges on that one Kaled. They're not currently really more than rules at the moment.

You're actually predicting me. Eventually, I'll be doing this as a full blown and in-character document in the style of a firearms buyer's guide.
A very early and somewhat incomplete draft of what the current "Special Rules/Effects" section might look like is below:

Is this firearm right for me?

This is probably the most important question that the buyer or user needs to ask, because a weapon that's wrong for you is of little more use than a paperweight. It is also however, a question that few consider when making a purchase, buying a firearm based on singular traits that appeal, not effectiveness of the whole, and are left with a disadvantage they are unwilling or unable to shoulder.

For this reason, we have provided data tables for each of the firearms we list. Our readers should already be familiar with standard firearms data notation (if not, then refer to pg. 32 of publication 1-84154-077-3).

For convenience, all of these tables have an additional column which contains basic facts about the firearm in question. Due to several weapons possessing similar qualities, the following commonly used definitions and abbreviations are used in this column:

*Insert Table of stuff here*

The eagle eyed may spot the hidden joke/reference in the passage... but the thing is, I want to have the rules down fairly well before I invest the time in making it all in-universe.

Not sure it's necessarily the stuff of a DM article though - it's lengthy, and not exactly within guidelines. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing it released in a vein similar to the sourcebooks though, as a document in its own right, but I doubt it's an article.
That said, I have things I do think might make articles if smartened up a bit - My version of "Alignment", which some might remember a brief post for on the last 'Clave; and possibly something I wrote a few years ago about "One Liners", which gave characters a bonus for accompanying an action with an appropriately witty comment - not really part of my normal more serious tone, but nonetheless entertaining.

[Inquisitor Cade]

Is the joke to do with sholdering the unwanted gun, or was that an unintended pun?

You could a DM article with about 3 revolvers, 3 stubbers, an SMG and/or machine pistol and handful of the log guns. Then at the bottom of the article something like.

"For the full product list log your cogitators on to Imperial network gamma three at *insert link to Revised Armory*

Remember, The Emperor protects those who protects themselves."

You should have a picture of a model of all, or at least most of the guns in the article though.


I'll take my reloading theory elsewhere. Maybe Pricinctomega will concider it for INQ 2.

[MarcoSkoll]

@ Inquisitor Cade: No, that's not what I was referring to. No intended pun there.

It's the reference to "pg. 32 of publication 1-84154-077-3".
This the numbers weren't just made up off the top of my head, and they do what they say they will. I'll leave you to figure it out.

[Simeon Blackstar]

Without checking, I'd have guessed that that's the ISBN of the Inquisitor Rule Book, and p32 is where it gives abbreviations.

I'd like to jump in as defence though - I thought half the point of this was to simply give rough weapon profiles analagous to real weapons so people can see what they've got and make appropriate fluff for themselves?

Maybe the project's gone beyond that while the Conclave was down (I wasn't on Warseer either), but otherwise isn't it little better than another load of weapons that no one knows the power of?

[MarcoSkoll]

And it still will be the point of it. It's a bit hard to explain how I'm going to go about it, but in the end, it will both do that, but have fluff and background to go with it.

In simplified terms, the profile will look at a class of weapons from a general viewpoint, and the text/background will start in the same way, then (where appropriate) talk about a specific example of the class.
A bit like me talking about a type of car (say, superminis) generally, then pulling out the Ford Fiesta (or whatever) as an example of the type.

The background is being written from the viewpoint of making the player think from the character's view. Is this what they would choose and for what reasons?

It's a bit experimental, but I think it has the potential to work, and sate the appetites of most readers. Worst case scenario, I can release it in both bland and flavoured formats, and there'll be a profile summary in both.

~~~~~

Also, right on both points. It's the ISBN and "Weapon profiles" page.

[DapperAnarchist]

I like them being just rules, with no specific names - I mean, in an Imperium of a million worlds or so, with the vast majority producing weapons for local use or export, there's going to be exponentially more names for guns then we could come up with - but the functions are kinda limited, as there's only so many ways one can cause injury at a distance. So with a list of the types of weapon, one can be reasonably complete, and then leave the make or marque of gun to the individual gamer (as I did, when I used the original rules for my Xenostalkers)

[MarcoSkoll]

I like them being just rules, with no specific names.

I don't intend to make it a list where everything on it is is a specific weapon. The rules will still represent a generic weapon, but the text may take a specific model as an example of that generic class. I think the way I'm doing it will probably work out fine.

We'll find out eventually either way.