[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**BrookM**

H.B.M.C. wrote:Iron Discipline - how I missed you so!

You should play IA8 Elysians, they still get Iron Discipline as a standard.

**Droma**

Noticed a mistake in the adventure in the back of the book. It says the big mek has his war buggies fire on the refinery but doesn't list how many war buggies are in his forces. Going to have to guess when I run it for my group.

I'm thinking of running that, then a couple missions of my own, and lead them into the 11th hour mission.

**Grot 6**

In the Eleventh Hour adventure, the Ogryn Guy is depicted in both the standard adventure, and the bonus characters. Is this some sort of typeo, or is there someone else, aside from the second posting of Urok?

Love the stuff so far. Don't mind the tech, either.

Would love to see a Sourcebook for Guardsmen on Gorkamorka, or a gorkamorka sourcebook in general.

Who was the producer of that female commisar that was the brunett? I might have to get me one, now.

**BrookM**

The print version of 11th Hour had wrong stats, but both the digital version and the extra characters file contain the right stats. He was added to the bonus character file as a quick fix to rectify the wrong stats found in the print version.

**warboss**

Melissia wrote:
Mostly the equipment part, the rest is pretty decent. It's just annoying that it's impossible to buy just one heavy weapon, for example-- you buy it instead as standard kit for the whole squad, giving my GM a headache until we decided to houserule changes to the equipment part. It's fun to play around with though, and I know FFG will include more options for regiment creation in supplements. And there's always houserules, as always.

I think that they expect you to have a PC in the heavy gunner class if you want a single heavy weapon since they come with one as part of their standard kit. Does anyone know if the ogryns and ratlings are supposed to roll and apply their regiment bonuses separately according to the rules? They're technically from a different world and regiment than the regular humans so they should have different backgrounds and bonuses. It's obviously easy to house rule that but I was wondering if there is an official mention about abhumans in that regard.

**BrookM**

It isn't stated, though I am tempted to apply the Schola Progenium home world to the commissar, just to make her stand out from the rest of the gang.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what's missing though? Forge Worlds as origins. Bit of a stretch, but it would still be a fun addition and good flavour for those non-Skitarii tech Guard units.

**H.B.M.C.**

Forge Worlds don't tithe Guard Regiments, so that wouldn't work.

Melissia wrote:It's just annoying that it's impossible to buy just one heavy weapon...

Uhh... Logistics Tests?

**Melissia**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Melissia wrote:It's just annoying that it's impossible to buy just one heavy weapon...
Uhh... Logistics Tests?

... which is something done after the regiment creation process, not during.

It remains to be silly that the regiment can give the squad ten autocannons (hell, it can even be best quality autocannons if you want!), but not just one.

**warboss**

Melissia wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Melissia wrote:It's just annoying that it's impossible to buy just one heavy weapon...
Uhh... Logistics Tests?
... which is something done after the regiment creation process, not during.

It remains to be silly that the regiment can give the squad ten autocannons (hell, it can even be best quality autocannons if you want!), but not just one.

So.. you want a single heavy weapon in the squad? Make a PC with the appropriate speciality that comes free with one. Need another or a single one for a specific mission without that specialty in the squad? Have it distributed as mission specific gear or acquire it permanently with a logistics roll. What's the issue? You want a heavy weapon but don't want a trooper who is actually trained in it? You seem mad that the rules won't let you have your way despite going about this in a needless obscure manner. There are multiple existing ways that a squad can get a single heavy weapon so there is zero need for that mechanic in the regimental rules as each regiment already consists of heavy gunner characters as well as the organization you're roleplaying through a logistics roll.

**H.B.M.C.**

Nah Mel’s right. The rules don’t allow you to assign a single a Heavy Weapon per squad. Right now you cannot have a single Lascannon per squad, but everyone in the squad can have a Multi-Melta. That crazy.

It should be tied to the ‘Favoured Weapon’ part of regiment creation.

**BaronIveagh**

Eh, tha'ts what testing is for.

BTW: on the Pathfinder thing: as a tester for that: yes, the PDF was free.

**H.B.M.C.**

This book has already been through play-testing (and the testers don't have to pay for their copies). This is a further 'pass' with a wider audience to catch anything else that may have been missed. It has an built-in incentive for those who want to get the full PDF later on. They're not going to give the full rules away for free.

**warboss**

H.B.M.C. wrote:Nah Mel’s right. The rules don’t allow you to assign a single a Heavy Weapon per squad. Right now you cannot have a single Lascannon per squad, but everyone in the squad can have a Multi-Melta. That crazy.

It should be tied to the ‘Favoured Weapon’ part of regiment creation.

The rules do allow that by simply taking a guardsman trained in its use who gets it free. Eh, to each his own. I see other better uses of the regimental system than for things you can already do multiple ways with existing rules.

**H.B.M.C.**

[Post Removed]

**warboss**

As a side note, is there a table for xp/level anywhere? Also, is the first aptitude missing from the characteristic and aptitude table on page 66?

**H.B.M.C.**

[Post Removed]

**Droma**

warboss wrote:As a side note, is there a table for xp/level anywhere? Also, is the first aptitude missing from the characteristic and aptitude table on page 66?

There is no xp/level table because a character can buy anything as long as they meet the pre-req and have enough xp. The biggest limiting factor is the logistics system keeping their gear in check for the most part.

As for the aptitude no it's not missing. The name of the characteristic is also the name of the aptitude. If you look at a lot of the specialties and regiments they provide aptitudes like ballistic skill, weapon skill, wisdom, etc. So if you want cheap ballistic skill increases then you need both the ballistic skill and the finesse aptitudes.

On a related note I'm loving me some vostroyan stormtroopers. With the regiment and specialty each granting the ballistic skill aptitude I can take finesse instead so I get super cheap WS/BS increases for that character.

**Kroothawk**

Are Praetorians even mentioned?

**BrookM**

H.B.M.C. wrote:I guess it stems from the fact that I think the 'Favoured Weapons' thing should have mechanics, and use the 30 points to amend the basic kit mechanics to allow it.

It's better than letting every character have a a Multi-Melta for free.

Agreed, the favoured weapon thing is a bit unclear and could do with a bit more clarification or something helpful like "If picking X it allows your heavy / specialist to take it instead of the standard choices"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kroothawk wrote:Are Praetorians even mentioned?

Nope, but you can easily make them using the regiment system. Maybe they're in the fluff sections, but that's missing from the book right now.

**Anung Un Rama**

I didn't you you actually wrote rules for FFG H.B.M.C.. And on the 40k RPG too. Must be a dream come true for an old 40k-nerd like you.

The book sounds great. I bought Dark Herey when it came out but never played it. This could be more interesting though.

**Melissia**

warboss wrote:The rules do allow that by simply taking a guardsman trained in its use who gets it free.

IF one of the player characters wants to play a heavy gunner. But what if they don't? Suddenly, for no reason, the squad is without a heavy weapon? That's rather silly.

And even then they have to use one of the starting weapons for the class, not necessarily the choice weapon of the regiment. So if you list a lascannon or plasma gun as the favored weapon of the regiment, you're boned. Hell, I couldn't even find where the favored weapon rules ARE when I first created a regiment, they're stuffed way back in a different section with no mention in the regiment creation rules-- using the regiment creation rules as they are with no houseruling, no player-created regiment has favored weapons.

As I said, I'm gonna be doing a lot of houseruling in my game. It's a good game system but it definitely needs work.

**Melissia**

Me and another GM of a different game are collecting complaints from our players, and we'll be emailing them. I can honestly say I don't know where the beta forums are to begin with

**H.B.M.C.**

[Post Removed]

**Melissia**

Don't be so petulant, HBMC.

The players' complaints almost invariably also involve how wethink it can be fixed. When I said "I'll be houseruling", the houserules I mention fix the problem. We don't just complain and then play the same rules we complain about.

That's more something you'd do.

**H.B.M.C.**

[Post Removed]

**BrookM**

Does this complainer involve xenos?

This publication does feel different when compared to the previous RPG books I've read. I can see that the writing styles certainly differ from chapter to chapter and right now, it am a wee bit of a mess IMHO.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Re: Vehicle combat. Looking into the best way to play it on a grid map. Movement and ranges might need some tweaking there for this in our games.

**Melissia**

THis will be the first time we seriously do vehicle combat. Last time we did it it was almost GTA style, with our guardsman kicking the chimera's back door open to launch rockets out the back at a 'nid that was chasing us

Fun times.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Don't get pissy with me Mel.

That's what I was trying to tell you, stop getting pissy just because people have complaints

It IS a beta after all.

**H.B.M.C.**

[Post Removed]

**BrookM**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
BrookM wrote:This publication does feel different when compared to the previous RPG books I've read. I can see that the writing styles certainly differ from chapter to chapter and right now, it am a wee bit of a mess IMHO.

That's actually true of most books. When I did the proofreading on The Achilus Assault there were parts where I could tell which author did what bit. Not by name - I could say "Jonny X did this bit, and Timmy Y did this bit", but I could pick out which bits had been written by a specific author, as they all had 'signs' or 'tells', either with some favourite form of expression, or even just the way they used punctuation. Only books written mostly by one person (like Fallen Suns, by fellow Dakkanaut TheDunner) were consistent the whole way through. I'm not immune to this either, mind you. I'm sure you can look at certain passages and find the way I write things compared to the way John or Nathan (N0-1-H34R at the FFG forums) writes their stuff.

BrookM wrote:Re: Vehicle combat. Looking into the best way to play it on a grid map. Movement and ranges might need some tweaking there for this in our games.

I couldn't tell you the best way (I don't think there is one). We do everything with either grid/maps and miniatures, or standard 40K terrain and tape measures (1" = 2 metres usually).

Haha, I could certainly tell which parts you have written.

As for vehicular combat, I'm trying to avoid the standard 40k terrain for that, along with 28mm models for that part. Regular infantry engagements / skirmishes will get the 28mm on a grid map treatment, but vehicle segments will either be abstract or done with Epic minis.

**H.B.M.C.**

BrookM wrote:Haha, I could certainly tell which parts you have written.

That's 'cause I told you!!!

No go and bask in the glory that are my rules for vehicles catching fire!

BrookM wrote:As for vehicular combat, I'm trying to avoid the standard 40k terrain for that, along with 28mm models for that part. Regular infantry engagements / skirmishes will get the 28mm on a grid map treatment, but vehicle segments will either be abstract or done with Epic minis.

Sadly I don't have stocks in gold, so don't have enough money to buy Epic minis.