Quote from: Ghost Whistler;642437This really is an old criticism.  I don't agree the rules are poorly organised. The books have terrible editing in places and don't scale as well as they should. Percentile system struggles a bit at the top end (ie Space Marines). However the multiple game line approach isn't that bad an idea.

In concept no, in practice yes it was. Especially for Daemon Hunter where they really run aground against the rocks of inconsistent rules. And the switch in companies doesn't matter to the buyer, only the end product.

Worst, it's completely unnecessary.

When I go to convert this to Age of Heroes I'll be able to match their entire Dark Heresy, Death Watch and Only Wars series in a single campaign supplement of what will likely be less than a 100 pages. Another 100 for setting fluff (which I won't do, more like a dozen listing the changes) and my existing core book of 262 pages (much of its magic section wouldn't apply but the rest would but even so the used page count would be significantly lower) and I'll be done.

My total page count will barely be larger than one of their books.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;642437There aren't two damage systems.

I disagree, and I think any objective review of exactly what the damage rolls mean when would side with me.

Part of the reason for this being so clear to me is that Age of Heroes  runs solely with what in those games is called Critical Damage- and that's it. Thus it's very clear that Wounds are an add on intended to be a buffer for true damage resolution and nothing more.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;642437Depends on the character and the weapons available to him.

Auto-fire weapons are easy to get a hold of.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;642437Not a huge amount FFG can do except completely start from scratch which will annoy a lot of people, including me looking at my bookshelf.

While I'm sympathetic to that point, it's still a case of poor playing on their part does not require acceptance on mine.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;642437Meh, it works in play.

And it will for us, for the one module we'll use their system for.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;642437You're overthinking the setting.

I'm not overthinking it, it's clear what it is. What I am doing is rejecting it.

My intent is alter it enough to make the dystopian result of the Empire a mistake. If we were to ever play a campaign, its major theme would be to undo that mistake.

If you read some aspects of the fluff the Imperium is a mistake: the Emperor never intended for it to become a stagnant dystopia.

If you read other aspects, it's even harsher: in the wargame it is made clear that humanity is on its last legs. The grim dark future is the last days of the galaxy, swallowed up by war. etc etc.

But that's somewhat missing the flavour of the setting.

You can change it as you see fit, but you wouldn't be playing 40k.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;642465You can change it as you see fit, but you wouldn't be playing 40k.

I am SO contented with that result. I do the same thing with Shadowrun.

The only reason I still even use the old names is because the look is the same, and to a character who didn't know better- so is the world. One has to peel away some layers to find the truth of matter.

I'm not sure why you even bothered in the first place.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;642490I'm not sure why you even bothered in the first place.

I tried to explain it in the OP, it was for my Sons. If not for them, I would have never gotten involved with it.

Quote

Quote from: gleichman;642456In concept no, in practice yes it was. Especially for Daemon Hunter where they really run aground against the rocks of inconsistent rules. And the switch in companies doesn't matter to the buyer, only the end product.

I'm just telling you why it's the way it is. Not justifying it.

QuoteWorst, it's completely unnecessary.

They could have completely changed the system, I don't know. I don't think their design staff are particularly gifted, but they also inherited work toward Rogue Trade and to a lesser extent Deathwatch. I don't know how much of that was contractual. But they obviously felt that changing things mid way through to that kind of extent would do more harm than good. I can sympathise with that.

QuoteI disagree, and I think any objective review of exactly what the damage rolls mean when would side with me.

Good for you.

QuoteAuto-fire weapons are easy to get a hold of.

That depends. Nothing in the setting is easy to get hold of, it depends who and where you are. Normal imperial citizens can't buy guns. Most of them probably don't know what a gun is or how to use one. They'd still need the training talent to fire effectively.

QuoteI'm not overthinking it, it's clear what it is. What I am doing is rejecting it.

Why even continue pretending it's Dark Heresy then? Why not play something different.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;642494I'm just telling you why it's the way it is. Not justifying it.

As the buyer of a product, I just want a good product. The why behind its failures are nowhere near as interesting as the fact it fails.

Now if I some sort of ownership in the company, that would change.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;642494That depends. Nothing in the setting is easy to get hold of, it depends who and where you are.

Most of the starting professions get an Auto-Pistol or better. In fact in Only War you can easily grab a Heavy Bolter or Las-cannon as newbie chararacters if you want to. Heck, you can get a Leman-Rus Battle Tank.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;642494Why even continue pretending it's Dark Heresy then? Why not play something different.

Answered that above. Also there is a certain joy in taking a game that deconstructs western civilization and turning it on its head by deconstructing it.

If I may:

Quote- Who thought two damage systems were a good idea? It has 'Wounds' that play just like D&D Hit Points in that they're meaningless until they're gone at which point things convert to critical damage (which really jacks you up).

So basically you beat on your foe without effect for a bit, and then he dies in a gushing fountain of blood. D&D players would be happy with this, but really no else as they'd likely be happier with a single damage system instead of the two step.

You fail to note that the 'hit points' only just barely outstrip weapon potential damage, disregarding Righteous Fury damage. Your 'beat on your foe' generally consists of one or two shots/hits before they 'dies in a gushing fountain of blood'... which given the purported lethality of the system is a good thing, or at least meeting design goals.

QuoteThis duel damage method also makes auto-fire the go to weapons system btw.

You fail to explain how this is a problem. Most high-end weapons in the real world use autofire. We can argue about if it is to do more damage or to simple provide more chances to hit, but either way I'm cool with not making a sling-stone the best weapon in the game out of some misguided attempt to avoid letting multiple bullets be more deadly than single bullets.

Quote- All stats for everything from human to space marine to a Hive Tyrant must fit with a 1-100 scale. What a pain.

Agreed, which would probably be why they used unnatural attribute modifiers. Amazingly Space Marines have Unnatural Strength and Unnatural Toughness when they are supposed to be superhumanly strong and superhumanly tough.  I must resist the urge to mock you, if only because you apparently realize these exist but yet you complain about the scale as if this workaround doesn't exist.  Don't like the workaround? I'm cool with that, but if you're going to critique the game, you have to actually critique the rules as they stand, not some convienently stripped down version that you made up.

Quote- It has the old 1st edition RuneQuest problem with combat. Your attack skill is completely independent of your Defense skill, and worse indepentant of the skills of your opponent.

Lets say you have a 65% Parry. Fighting a 3-year child? You have a 65% Parry. Fighting a Space Marine Captain? You have a 65% Parry.

30 years and designers are still making that mistake. Sigh.

I think the issue here is that the entire game line is built on the concept of adding bonus modifiers for easier tasks. The default baseline of skills are thus assuming much worse conditions than is standard for games. In your example (the 3-year old child), such a Parry is presumably 'Very Easy' and thus worth something like a +30 on the skill check.

I think its a BAD assumption, as it creates a very common, at the table, point of failure.  People, GMs, forget to consider modifiers all the time... especially if they are lazy or in a hurry (and since they are probably outnumbered by 4 to 1 at a minimum, its easy to get rushed). Its not such a big deal if those are penalties (and to: I think its easier to remember to make a task harder than it is to make it easier), but it does matter when your master swordsman is getting trounced by a child, if only because it makes for serious immersion breaking.

Quote- Heavy offense bias as in most RPGs. Up against a foe witih a high Parry or Dodge? He only gets one or two of those- just hit him a third time and he's as open as any paper target would be.

Thus combat consists of focused fire moving from single target to single target. Does this match the fiction and fluff? No, I guess that wasn't the point of the game.

I'm not sure what the complaint is. The game is lethal, you have very few hit points, why should you be able to fight twenty guys at once without a scratch?  THe fiction and fluff generall does show nearly unbreakable defences for a few characters, from time to time, but mostly focuses on the lethality.  I'll note also that there is a talent that reduces/eliminates some of the penalties for parrying (which doesn't address your dodge economy of action, but again: In the fiction the only time people seem to have unbreakable defense is when meleeing lots of opponents.).

Like your autofire is king comment: I, personally, am cool with a game engine that models observable reality: If lots of people are attacking you, attempting to dodge all of them independently is doomed to failure.  Get the fuck to cover instead of standing in the open like a dope.

QuoteAll that fluff saying that fire is bouncing off the Space Marine armor? It's lie, it's actually blowing through and sticking in their thick hide for no effect (and I mean *no* effect). Oh, it broke the armor's enviromental seal along the way (just to make it even more clear that the round is sticking in th Marine's hide).

What weapons were being used at your table?!

Seriously: Space Marine armor has an AP 12, minimum.  Las and Slug weapons have, almost universally, a Pen of 0 and a damage of 1d10+3 (sometimes +4).  That means that, on average, only 1 shot in ten is going to do any damage at all (and then we run into righteous fury rules)... and that is before toughness.  

So yes: 90% of the weapons in the galaxy bounce off of power armor most of the time.

I am cool with heavy weapons breaking through.  I am cool with rare, high energy super weapons made with technology now considered essentially lost breaking through. I am cool, if only from a fluff aspect, with almost every other melee weapon in the galaxy breaking through, even if I personally think that is stupid.

Quote- Melee weapons do far more damage than 20mm explosive rockets.

First: In real life melee weapons do a lot more damage than bullets. We don't use them because the range sucks.  True: We don't have a good baseline comparison for 20mm rockets, but thats because most rockets, in real life are much, much bigger.  I am assuming, however, that you are referring to Bolters?

So, in Only War, a bolter does d10+5 with a pen of 4.  The only unpowered weapon that is comparable is the Warhammer, which is a d10+2 with a Pen of 1.

Oh. that's not terribly comparable, is it?  Well, I suppose you can add strength to that, so for the average man that becomes a d10+5 pen 1.  So against an unarmored man being struck by a bolter shell is roughly the same as a massive two handed hammer being swung at full force.  Against someone in any armor, however, the bolter is still worse.

I'm going to ignore the hunting lance (explosive shell on a stick) and the Grox-whip (barbed steel whip with ridiculous damage for no reason. Its an outlier and one I'd happily ban for hitting 1 whole point harder than the warhammer...).

You must mean power weapons then? Yet I am strangely comfortable with 'molecular disruption fields' being more powerful than 'tiny rockets'.  Personal bias.



Seriously, G.  There is plenty to complain about in the 40k lineup. I personally would start with talents, which are so bloated and cludgy that they actually infected the character system and render the combat chapters virtually unusuable (since, you know, half the rules are actually found under various talent entries...).

But then you seem to have a serious beef with the 40k RPGs, since this is the third or fourth thread in two weeks calling them out from you.  Its okay, to hate, man. But it does make you a poor critic.

Quote from: Spike;642577If I may:

So much here, and so little of it actually touches on what the problems were, but I sort of opened myself up to that by shotgunning the points without much detail

Quote from: Spike;642577You fail to note that the 'hit points' only just barely outstrip weapon potential damage

Depends upon the armor + toughness of the defender and the weapon in use. The amount of time it takes to burn through those hit points could be a a significant amount of time, or immediate.

I don't care which it ends up being, I hate the two-step mechanic period.

Quote from: Spike;642577You fail to explain how this is a problem. Most high-end weapons in the real world use autofire.

I wouldn't make that claim myself, and the field is one that I have spent a lot time studying and have some person experience in.

But I'm not interested in debating it here. It's enough to note that I don't like such a simple and clear weapon dominance- it's boring in a RPG.

Quote from: Spike;642577Agreed, which would probably be why they used unnatural attribute modifiers.

I already covered my objection to the the unnatural attribute traits in a previous replay in this thread.

Quote from: Spike;642577I think the issue here is that the entire game line is built on the concept of adding bonus modifiers for easier tasks.

One would think that, except that the modules don't work that way (at least the ones we played provide only negative modifiers and no positive ones).

With respect to combat there's no guidence in the rules for saying that parrying anything is a Very Easy task, otherwise we'd see a chart listing the modifiers by WS of the attacker.

Quote from: Spike;642577I'm not sure what the complaint is.  The game is lethal, you have very few hit points, why should you be able to fight twenty guys at once without a scratch?

It results in boring tactical play, and as you note- makes part of the fluff impossible.

Quote from: Spike;642577Like your autofire is king comment: I, personally, am cool with a game engine that models observable reality: If lots of people are attacking you, attempting to dodge all of them independently is doomed to failure.  Get the fuck to cover instead of standing in the open like a dope.

It would likely take too long to answer this, and we seem to have different views on what reality is in any case- so that spent time would be wasted.

I'll simply say I disagree and move on.

Quote from: Spike;642577What weapons were being used at your table?!

Seriously: Space Marine armor has an AP 12, minimum.  Las and Slug weapons have, almost universally, a Pen of 0 and a damage of 1d10+3 (sometimes +4).

I'd have to verify the rules, but I think we must be looking at different ones.

Weapons and attacks with at least a few points of AP were very common in the modules we played. I don't think I saw a single AP zero weapon used, although I asked for knives for everyone ("never go anywhere without a knife") and even those had AP 2 because we added the mono-blade modifer to them (they weren't used).

Beyond that, I think you fail to understand the nature of my problems and spent a lot of time talking about stuff I wasn't. I'll take the blame for not making it clearer up front.

Put simply, I think Toughness approaching (and exceeding under certain conditions) the value of armor is dumb. But that is indeed the case be it Guard with Flak Vests or with Space Marines in Power Armor.

Don't like it, and it's one of the reasons we'll ditch the game at the end of the current module we're playing.

QuoteDepends upon the armor + toughness of the defender and the weapon in use. The amount of time it takes to burn through those hit points could be a a significant amount of time, or immediate.

I don't care which it ends up being, I hate the two-step mechanic period.

Fair enough. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to consider it a 'two step' mechanic any more than I'd consider a game with ablative armor (Rifts, say) to have a 'two step mechanic', or D&D, where from -1 to -10 you are opperating under different rules than from 1 to infinity, or 0 (three different rules for HP!).

Seriously: The mechanic is you run out of hit points and start rolling on crit charts on every hit. The very first crit is highly likely to kill you outright, or just maim you badly enough to end the fight.  That's it.  Need I point out the crit chart is a simple d10 roll (plus any 'negative hp' accrued?), and the second HALF of any given chart is essentially increasingly colorful ways of saying 'game over'? .  

A more reasonable point might be that if your damage system requires 8 pages of tables to say 'you're dead', you might have overdone it.

QuoteI wouldn't make that claim myself, and the field is one that I have spent a lot time studying and have some person experience in.

But I'm not interested in debating it here. It's enough to note that I don't like such a simple and clear weapon dominance- it's boring in a RPG.

And I don't like it that hitting someone with a car is usually more effective than shooting them, but in games where there are car impact mechanics, that is usually true.

I'd really like to see how you explain away my point that most high end weapons use autofire. Submachine guns (Uzis), Assault Rifles (M16/AK47), Machine guns (M60,M249,M2), vulcan cannons on aircraft (20mm, 30mm etc...)... all use multiple bullets to be 'more effective'. You could argue that there is a dominance of auto-fire weapons in the military world, that the people who expect to do a lot of shooting use one of two methods to increase killing power of weapons: They throw more bullets downrange, or the make explody things go down range. That's pretty much it.

Playing with single shot muskets may be more fun (for you, or whomever), but its not terribly realistic for a military themed game (Only War, which you mentioned) to exclude autofire based on your love of muzzle loaders, or whatever.*

QuoteI already covered my objection to the the unnatural attribute traits in a previous replay in this thread.

I saw a mention of unnatural attributes from you, but not a specific objection. Not in this thread, certainly.  If you wish to make it again, I'll be happy to entertain it.

If, however, if it doesn't make an argument as to how unnatural attributes fail to address your scaling concern, I will hold that my original point is still valid. Quite specifically: They didn't try to squeeze everything into a single 1-100 scale, they included Unnatural Attributes to cover things that are simply bigger than that scale.

We can, of course, address the validity of that workaround, but simply ignoring it (as you did in the original quoted complaint) is deceptive and makes it look like you'd rather sound like you'd rather win than be right.

QuoteOne would think that, except that the modules don't work that way (at least the ones we played provide only negative modifiers and no positive ones).

I can't address your module play, since I don't generally play modules and have none at all for Only War. Ironically, I do have the published modules/adventures for DH and RT, so if you'd care to name specific cases?

QuoteWith respect to combat there's no guidence in the rules for saying that parrying anything is a Very Easy task, otherwise we'd see a chart listing the modifiers by WS of the attacker.

I will refer you to page 32 of Only War, the last paragraph under Test Difficulty, first sentance. The GM determines the test difficulty. Parrying a 3 year old would be a 'Trivial' Task for any character, thus +60 to the roll. That there is no specific rule governing fighting 3 year olds is not a fault on the part of the game designers.

QuoteIt results in boring tactical play, and as you note- makes part of the fluff impossible.

I don't see how having endless parries and dodges actually makes the tactical play 'unboring'.  In fact, I can see how it would reduce tactical play.

"You're standing in an open feild, there is a concrete barrier five feet to your left, in front of you are thirty guys with guns, and they're getting ready to shoot you. What do you do?"

"Duh. I dodge all of them. Again."

Boring.  Interesting choices comes from having to work within limits. Like, not being able to independently dodge every single incoming attack. I can think of very few games with any reasonable complexity that actually let you do that.  

As for contradicting 'some fluff'. There are several hundred books at this point, written by over a dozen authors, not to mention several hundred more smaller pieces of in game fiction present in the rule books, also by different authors.  There are also some six different video games I can think of and at least one incomplete movie. Contradicting at least some of that fluff is inevitable. That said: The Vast Majority of the fluff does not show people (monsters maybe, but not people), dodging dozens of seperate attackers.  My allowance was for errol flynn style fencing parries (themselves a rarity in the fluff) which IS (sort of) do-able in the rules with the right talents.

QuoteI'd have to verify the rules, but I think we must be looking at different ones.

Only War page 174 is a good star. Of the Las Weapon entrys there are 11 weapons listed. 5 have a penetration of higher than 0. Two are heavy weapons and one is the sniper "long Las" (with a notional pen of 1), leaving 2 basic weapons out of nine with decent Pen values (the Hot-Shot versions, also known as Hell-guns, known throughout the fluff for punching holes in armor. I'm too lazy to verify that their PEN got an upgrade from previous books in the line, however. Yes, I agree their PEN is a bit high. Note that Hellguns are listed as "Rare" availability.).  

Slug Weapons: 13 non-vehicular weapons, and four vehicle weapons. 8 zero pen weapons. 3 heavy weapons. 1 sniper rifle with a still mostly notional PEN of 3, and a hand cannon with a PEN of 2.

Las and slug weapons are, or should be, the primary weapons in use by almost everyone in the galaxy, or at least the trillions of humans (Imperial, rebel and Chaos). Unless you want to discuss the various primative feral and late mideval worlds, in which case... still PEN 0.

If you are playing Space Marines (Deathwatch or Black Crusade) you might see a lot of Bolt weapons, with a Pen of a 'huge' 4. Nice, but against power armor its relatively trivial.  If anything, some PEN's are a bit low. Plasma weapons only get a 6, which is half of Power Armor, while on the tabletop they completely negate power armor, but I'm actually fine with their balance, as they get a reasonably high damage.

Those are my rules. Are you arguing from ignorance? I looked at a fucking chart in a fucking book.

Here, I'll help. Page 168 of Only War.  Penetration negates AP by its value. Its a weak version of damage that doesn't actually hurt anything. Woohoo.

QuoteWeapons and attacks with at least a few points of AP were very common in the modules we played. I don't think I saw a single AP zero weapon used, although I asked for knives for everyone ("never go anywhere without a knife") and even those had AP 2 because we added the mono-blade modifer to them (they weren't used).

Is this the players not having any AP 0 weapons? Or the NPCs? You do realize that the design assumption is notionally the idea that the PCs are outclassed? Like, you know, Horror? GrimDark? They die alot?  

Or is this like your beef with Auto-fire being very common in militaries, in that it somehow offends your sense of reality?  If your modules include heavy weapons being shot at pc, guess what: if Heavy Weapons weren't anymore powerful than ordinary weapons people wouldn't use them. Too heavy.

QuoteBeyond that, I think you fail to understand the nature of my problems and spent a lot of time talking about stuff I wasn't. I'll take the blame for not making it clearer up front.

Sure. I'll buy that. I personally am starting to believe that the reason you can't explain stuff clearly is a strong personal bias that is clouding your judgement. Obviously, I'm willing to critique the rules, and brutally, but most of your critiques seem to be based more on irrational dislike than actual problems.

QuotePut simply, I think Toughness approaching (and exceeding under certain conditions) the value of armor is dumb. But that is indeed the case be it Guard with Flak Vests or with Space Marines in Power Armor.

Agreed.  Toughness is definitely over-weighted in the damage equation (or conversely, armor is too weak. I am inclined to consider the later, if only as it is a much easier systemic fix.  Simply double AP values and then start tweaking weapons after to up their damage. This also stops naked guardsmen with 40 or 50 Toughness from potentially bouncing 20% bullets and las-blasts off their mighty pecs, which is, to me, the greater offense.)

QuoteDon't like it, and it's one of the reasons we'll ditch the game at the end of the current module we're playing.

And that's fine. I don't play a lot of things because I don't like them enough to tolerate whatever irritates me about the rules.

But often your 'I don't like it' seems to translate into 'I don't like it, therefor it is broken and bad', which is often a lie. In this case the 'broken and bad' part may not be a lie, per se, but certainly your REASONS seem to be... wonky and misguided.


*I'm not actually suggesting you love muzzle loaders, but your dislike of autofire... as a concept... does not seem to bear any relationship to observable reality. I assume there is some romantic notion of lone gunmen firing a single bullet to save (or wreck) the day, which is great and all, but in RPGs that tends to create more problems than it solves (namely: Player characters are more vulnerable than NPCs, if only because they are less redily replaced).

Now, if you really want to debate the merits of how the rule is implemented, thats fine. No game with auto-fire has ever escaped critique for how they chose to do it.

Quote from: Spike;642640

I think much of what you are saying is factually incorrect (the GM making up task difficulty modifiers (not something I'd support even if it was allowed) for combat when the rule as I read it was intented for only non-combat skill resolution, the role of auto-fire in modern combat, etc.) or not relevant to the modules we were playing (I was the player, not the GM and I don't have access to them and in fact don't even know the titles)

This is clearly important enough to you that we can go far afield (such as into real world combat), debate the fine points, and quote entire passages from the book. Due to my near random shotgun comments of the OP, we'd also have to do it on multiple subjects.

And at the end, we likely still hold the exact same opinions we do now. I know that nothing you've said or quoted so far has moved me one bit. I'd rather skip the wasted time if you don't mind.

Now you've raised some questions that are more interesting in general terms, such as the role of auto-fire in RPGs. Perhaps a new thread on that subject would be interesting, I'd stop by to put in my two cents.

Quote from: gleichman;642643I think much of what you are saying is factually incorrect (the GM making up task difficulty modifiers (not something I'd support even if it was allowed) for combat when the rule as I read it was intented for only non-combat skill resolution, the role of auto-fire in modern combat, etc.) or not relevant to the modules we were playing (I was the player, not the GM and I don't have access to them and in fact don't even know the titles)

I give you page reference and paragraph and sentance references and you suggest I'm factually incorrect?  

Its a radical idea to suggest some combat actions are easier or harder than others?  Seriously: The subheading I quoted was literally 'Task Resolution'. Not 'skill resolution' not 'Non-combat task resolution'. It was task resolution, and it was at the beginning of the book because that's where you explain how the rules. ALL THE RULES work. It wasn't in skills, its not a skill specific thing.  Are you suggesting that it makes sense that shooting a target a mile away in the dark, in a rainstorm while riding a bucking bronco should be exactly the same difficulty as shooting him in the back of the head at ten paces in broad daylight in an empty field?

Because the only way your argument is valid is if combat penalties for adversity aren't allowed either. Because thats covered under the exact same task resolution section I cited originally.

You really do have nothing, don't you.

Seriously?  "Stuff".

:teehee:

QuoteThis is clearly important enough to you that we can go far afield (such as into real world combat), debate the fine points, and quote entire passages from the book. Due to my near random shotgun comments of the OP, we'd also have to do it on multiple subjects.

You keep going on about your 'random shotgun comments'. Thats a bullshit dodge, since I responded to your comments and you then responded to my response. The only way its valid is if you actually mean to say you have better complaints that you didn't bring up that you'd rather talk about.

But we aren't talking about those, we're talking, specifically, about what YOU brought up. Defend THOSE talking points if you can.

QuoteAnd at the end, we likely still hold the exact same opinions we do now. I know that nothing you've said or quoted so far has moved me one bit. I'd rather skip the wasted time if you don't mind.

The purpose of arguing in a public forum is rarely to move the minds of your interlocutors but those of your audience. If you wish to conceed that you essentially have got nothing, then I will graciously accept your surrender and the accolades, silent or otherwise, of the witnesses.

Oddly enough, however, I hold that I am perfectly willing to be shown that I am wrong. I set the shamefully high standards of requiring a modicum of reason and evidence rather than simple exhortations of opinion.

But then again: According to you I apparently don't exist in the same reality you do.  Please.

QuoteNow you've raised some questions that are more interesting in general terms, such as the role of auto-fire in RPGs. Perhaps a new thread on that subject would be interesting, I'd stop by to put in my two cents.

Oh, no. I think here is a perfectly valid place to discuss it.  We can even keep it on topic.

How about we start with a simple question of our OP, that being you:

What, exactly, is offensive with autofire weapons being the go to choice for PCs in Dark Heresy/Only War?  What, in your opinion, would be a better go to choice, and why?

Note that I am not requiring you to justify your answers with rules, the idea being that rules should be shaped to support a desired end state, in this case weapon choices.

I'll give you a chance to answer before I, in interests of fairness, attempt to explain what I believe... proper?... answer should be, based on my interpretation of the game, and where it went wrong.

Quote from: Spike;642652I give you page reference and paragraph and sentance references and you suggest I'm factually incorrect?

Actually if you closely read what I said it comes out more to: "If you're wrong- I don't like the result, and if you're right- I don't like the result.

In truth I need the book in front of me to determine which case it is I don't like, but the impression I got from reading it a couple of weeks ago is that you're misapplying the rule.

Games that mean for such modifiers to apply typically provide an example list of such modifier- these games do not. In there absence, I can only assume that they don't exit. If that makes them bad games in your mind, good because it makes them bad games in mine as well.

And with that, I stand by my last post as from my point of view there is nothing else to add. Take the auto-fire question to a new thread and in general terms if you want an answer from me.

Quote from: gleichman;642655Actually if you closely read what I said it comes out more to: "If you're wrong- I don't like the result, and if you're right- I don't like the result.
.

Quote from: gleichman one post earlierI think much of what you are saying is factually incorrect

My memory isn't that bad, G.  You said I was factually incorrect after I cited pages. People could look up what I said and see for themselves.

You don't want to bother? That's fine, but don't go pretending I didn't back my shit up.


Really, this is starting to look like a case of you posting and hoping for some general up-twinkles or feel-good vibes about how sorry we all are you had to suffer through a 40k rpg. Oh noes.  I've offered to debate the merits of your ideas and your first response to was to accuse me of living in an alternate reality, and your second response was to pretend you'd had some sort of messaging problem and your third response is to dismiss what is actually said. As 'stuff' or 'factually incorrect'... or " I said it comes out more to". It DOESN'T. You said what you said, not that other bullshit.

You thinking its wrong either way? That's more fuel for the theory that you don't actually care how the game works, you just want to bitch.

For the record, to repeat myself: I'm not asking you to discuss how autofire should work, I'm asking you to explain your own premise that autofire should not be the go-to weapon for characters, and what should be.

Its a simple question, and best of all, since its entirely opinion based, you can't actually get it wrong. Except, I suppose, by continuing to dodge it inexplicably.

Quote from: Spike;642674My memory isn't that bad, G.  You said I was factually incorrect after I cited pages. People could look up what I said and see for themselves.

You don't want to bother? That's fine, but don't go pretending I didn't back my shit up.

Ok, I'm where I can can actually look it up. Only War, page 32. As can everyone else who has a copy of the book as you noted.

And I'm sorry, you're not just wrong. You are being... No. I'm passing on insults. They are pointless. I'm very disappointed in you.

We're done. I won't respond to you on this subject any further.