Hello!

I am looking to start a RT campaign with some friends of mine and require some extra characters (Forsaken Bounty was kind enough to provide me with 3 premades, yet I have some more friends to roll with).

Where I am stuck:

Starting equipment, so far I have figured out that I can pretty much give the characters anything as long as the acquisition of the item totals 0 or greater. What I cannot seem to find, however, is whether or not scale or craftsmanship affects weapon upgrades (or if this is GM discretion).

Example:

A character will receive a hellpistol

Rare: -10

Scale: +30 (a single purchase)

Craftsmanship: -10

Which leaves me with +10 which I would like to spend on a weapon upgrade.

I was looking into an overcharge pack

Common: +20

Scale: ??

Craftsmanship: ??

Will the pack have a scale of +30 because its for 1 character or does it become greater for buying a bulk of them, as they'd probably want more than 1 pack.

Or... do I tread the overcharge pack like a "setting" as tinker with the gun and make it absorb twice as much power for the extra damage (as it halves the clip size)

Does craftsmanship effect the pack?

As I saw it, I figured I could spend the extra +10 to get -10 worth of upgrades but I realize that might get them a boatload of upgrades, is this a correct assumption?

I hope my post isn't too chaotic or wall-of-texty.

Thanks for reading this in advance and I hope you guys can help a fresh GM out.

As far as I know/understand, scale is included in the calculation of aquisition modifier for starting equipment.

To be honest, I'm personally not too worried aboutletting characters have a bit of fancy starting equipment - they'll just buy it after game start otherwise.

The OP is a little confusing - I suspect you've misunderstood some things.

First, this is the rule for combining acquisitions:

Combining Acquisitions

Some items can be upgraded or modified to combine two or

more items together, such as a laspistol with a red-dot laser

sight. In this case, when testing to acquire the combined item,

compare the Availability of the item’s components and use

the greatest penalty to determine a base Availability Modifier.

Each additional component then results in an additional –5

penalty to the base Availability Modifier.

Core Rulebook page 271

So, if you "start" with a hellpistol with an Acquisition Modifier of +10 you can add two upgrades with an Acquisition Modifier of +10 or less each to end up with a total Acquisition Modifier of +0. (I'd make one of them a motion predictor.)

As for scale;

Many items that an Explorer owns are disposable,

such as special ammunition, drugs, and grenades.

Once an Explorer has acquired such an item, then he is

considered to have a steady supply of it and can take as

much or as little of it as he wishes (restricted only by

weight and common sense) when he leaves his vessel.

Core Rulebook page 271

The point is, Scale is usually not about "number of items", but "number of users".

Craftsmanship doesn't usually matter for Weapon Upgrades.

Very good replies. It should be noted that what Iku Rex is saying applies when you buy a weapon with upgrades , as a single acquisition. If you purchased the upgrade separately, it would indeed benefit/suffer from scale.

As Tenebrae said, scale is most likely intended to apply to starting acquisitions, even though those are technically (though I throw that particular stipulation out, myself) limited to a single item (which would preclude upgrades, vehicles, personnel and so on anyway). I say this because a Rogue Trader character being allowed only a single, common quality, scarce availability item is just ludicrous.

Tenebrae bring up a second good point. You will most likely want to limit the amount of acquisitions your players can make, or you'll be spending entire sessions rolling until everyone has everything.

Thank you all for these swift responses, I think I understand.

In my example case of the hellpistol:

Rare: -10

Scale: +30

Craftsmanship: -10

Total: +10

This would allow me to combine 2 more acquisitions when it comes to upgrades (-5 for each extra) as long as those upgrades are 0 or greater in the case of starting equipment (which had to have a sum of 0 or greater).

So I could add:

Overcharge pack (-5 and a subtotal of 0 or greater)

Common: +20

Scale: +30 (a supply for a single person)

Craftsmanship: Didn’t apply from what I understood

Subtotal: +50

Motion predictor (-5 and a subtotal of 0 or greater)

Very Rare: -20

Scale: +30

Craftsmanship: (same story as above)

Subtotal: +10

So these 2 upgrades would bring the hellpistol back to 0 difficulty again as I understand?

I haven't been following the thread, but by my interpretation (and the interpretation of all groups I've played in), no.

The Motion Predictor is Very Rare, and the Hellpistol is only Rare.

The Motion Predictor is therefore the rarest component, starting you at Very Rare, adding -5 for the other two components (the Hellpistol and the Overcharge Pack).

This would make the weapon you describe at a total of -10.

The Motion Predictor is Very Rare, and the Hellpistol is only Rare.

The Motion Predictor is therefore the rarest component, starting you at Very Rare, adding -5 for the other two components (the Hellpistol and the Overcharge Pack).

This would make the weapon you describe at a total of -10.

But I think the likely intent is that you use the total Acquisition Modifiers for each component. It makes more sense.

A "Good Quality (-10) Rare Availability (-10)" gun ought to be roughly equal to a "Common Quality (+0) Very Rare Availability (-20)" gun or a "Best Quality (-30) Average Availability (+10)" gun. They all have the same total Acquisition Modifier, -20.

So, adding an upgrade to one of those three guns ought to increase the acquisition difficulty by the same amount. Instead, by RAW, adding a Very Rare motion predictor to the first gun brings the Acquisition Modifier to -35, the second -25, and the third -55. I see no good reason why it should work like that.

I would see it as the hell pistol (-10) and good(-10) are a single item, so your base acquisition (with scale) is -20+30=+10. From my understanding, you can now take upgrades which have an availability up to very rare(-20), and add a -5 acquisition for each upgrade. So a motion predictor(-20) and,a say, a mele attachment(common I think? So if say a +10, but for the purpose if this exercise doesn't matter, as it is above -20) then the total upgrades equal -10. So hell pistol (-10), good(-10), two attachment(-5+-5) +scale(+30) equals +0. If one of the upgrades was rarer than -20, it now substitutes it's own aquisition as the base modifier

This is why you want the explorator to have the armouror trade skill, so you can assemble your own guns from parts and not have to make harder rolls.

The initial acquisiton is for a single item, though I suppose add-ons are acceptable RAW. Many GMs, however, let people get multiple items as long as it stays in the other parameters. I let a guy take 30 meltaguns for his elite guard. I've seen another GM grant multiple Sentinels. Just don't go overboard.

Why modifier for craftsmanship? Is the hellpistol good quality?

If no, then:

Motion predictor - very rare (-20)

+ hellpistol - rare (-5)

+ overcharge pack (-5)

total -30 +30 for scale = 0

On the other hand if crafstmanship combines into initial cost of the weapon (and I think it should), then kobrain is right.

Hmm why do you even use hellpistol? Are they short of bolt pistols or something?

This is why you want the explorator to have the armouror trade skill, so you can assemble your own guns from parts and not have to make harder rolls.

Putting what gear you may or may not have entirely in the hands of the GM. Good god, that freeform crafting system might just be the single laziest cop-out in the entire book (and that says a lot). I spit on it. Ptooie.

Frankly the entire acquisition system seems to have been dropped on its head as an infant. It is rather difficult to manage a system where you hold the wealth of worlds in your palm though.

Frankly the entire acquisition system seems to have been dropped on its head as an infant. It is rather difficult to manage a system where you hold the wealth of worlds in your palm though.

On the contrary it's entirely easy to do it!

"I want to buy X!"

"okay make an acquisitions test, modifier -20"

That's literally as complicated as it needs to get. The GM is final arbiter on modifiers and so the players don't need to bury their heads in books for hours just to figure out the total modifiers.

^ Oberoni fallacy .

The Oberoni Fallacy (also called the Rule 0 Fallacy) is the erroneous argument that the rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored, or one or more "house rules" can be made as exceptions.

The argument is logically unsound, because it supposes something isn't broken if it can be fixed. If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't need to be fixed.

^ Oberoni fallacy .

The Oberoni Fallacy (also called the Rule 0 Fallacy) is the erroneous argument that the rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored, or one or more "house rules" can be made as exceptions.

The argument is logically unsound, because it supposes something isn't broken if it can be fixed. If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't need to be fixed.

While I'd like to just agree with you and call it a day, Kasatka is only suggesting that the rules be used as intended. I have no idea why he thinks that's a counter-argument against the criticism toward the rules, but he's not suggesting any house rules.

However, I would like to say that if your players can't even be assed to learn something as exceedingly simple as the acquisition system, and look up their own acquisition, then your players are either thoroughly mentally handicapped, or a bunch of lazy bastards who don't appreciate the trouble you through as GM.

While I'd like to just agree with you and call it a day, Kasatka is only suggesting that the rules be used as intended. I have no idea why he thinks that's a counter-argument against the criticism toward the rules, but he's not suggesting any house rules.

He's ignoring the availability rules in chapter 5, and he's ignoring most of the rules for Acquisition Tests in chapter 9. This is not using said rules "as intended".

(To be fair though, Kasatka isn't actually saying "the acquisition rules aren't flawed". I may have been too quick on the trigger there.)

While I'd like to just agree with you and call it a day, Kasatka is only suggesting that the rules be used as intended. I have no idea why he thinks that's a counter-argument against the criticism toward the rules, but he's not suggesting any house rules.

However, I would like to say that if your players can't even be assed to learn something as exceedingly simple as the acquisition system, and look up their own acquisition, then your players are either thoroughly mentally handicapped, or a bunch of lazy bastards who don't appreciate the trouble you through as GM.

The rules, in and of themselves, are internally consistent and functional. That's relatively fine. Could be better, vis a vis the whole commerce-to-find-it-then-profit-factor-then-oh-no-you-left-your-wallet-in-your-other-power-armour shenangians.The problem I have with it is that the scale of things largely doesn't scale the way it should if you take it per RAW. Sure, I can handle the entire acquisition process myself and hand down customised modifiers for each object, but when a regular conversation with my players is "I'm acquiring an X, who wants the other one?" there's something a bit weird going on.

Personally I've always felt like the game needs a sort of dynasty character that represents your mining concerns, your production contracts, your oaths of fealty. You'd spend profit factor and go on endeavours to give that character talents like "Mechanicus Production Contact: Your dynasty has an arrangement with Forgeworld X to trade Y to receive a constant supply of Z. In addition, you have n amount of Item available for personal use." but that's a whole lot of work I can't really be bothered to come up with.

Okay, in all seriousness, never ever ever ever ever again in your whole existence on the planet Earth or any other planet refer to the Oberon Rule, in the name of all that was once classical and what may unconscionably become classical to future generations. Let it die here and now. If your friend made that web page, influence them to erase it.

Oberon has been many things in this epoch, most notably a Shakespeare character, but please, oh God, don't let that name march into history as an example of stupid ignorance. Your entire generation will regret it, along with the many other misrepresentations and malappropriations you already have to answer for (e.g. Hannibal was an ancient Carthaginian general largely remembered for marching over the Alps with some pachaderms, NOT some serial-killing cannibal!!!).

Shhhhhhhhhh.....let it die.

It's called the Oberoni Fallacy because that's who originally posted it on the D&D forums. Similar to how there's about three variants of Errant kicking around on these boards, names are hardly unique to history.

I know its origins. I'm imploring you to not prolong its use. Don't add to the possibility of it becoming an internet meme. Somewhere out there is an Oberon who is actually proud that his name is becoming synonymous with a lackluster thought process. Figure that out.

A number of points that it would take too much space to repeat in their entirety.

I agree that the system is incredibly flawed. If I had my way, the game would come with a massive spreadsheet detailing income and upkeep costs for each acquisition, allowing players to buy (without rolling) as much stuff as they like, provided they have the cash and Mechanicus adepts to keep it going. Of course, people are already struggling to keep up with my house rules...

And Errant Knight, I don't think you'll find a lot of people willing to take orders from a faceless username on the internet. Be the change you want to be, or whatever.

Egads! Yeah, you're right, people would struggle with a game that requires spreadsheets. Back in the day, our group got bogged down with the rules for Chivalry & Sorcery, then Rolemaster, then...

Coming from the wargame crowd in the days of epic games (Drang Nach Osten always comes to mind) I don't mind record-keeping, but I've learned that my groups get smaller when I introduce it to any game.

Look up "implore." It has nothing to do with issuing orders. Some people really need to grow some thicker skin, especially if they're going to survive on the internet. Here, let me get you a trophy...