Peacekeeper_b said:

Actually, in the example of Scrutiny, I don't think it's a case of Scrutiny not having enough (or any as the case may be) sub-categories, but the fact that it's used for most all sensor tests in the first place.

I'm a bit baffled as to why the designers felt the need to extend Scrutiny's function from what it was in DH to something that seems like it should be Search instead. To me, most all of the actions that involve Scrutiny+Detection would be better represented by Search or Awareness+Detection instead. After all, if you're using the sensors to, i don't know, search an area of space, shouldn't the skill that actually has that very name be used instead of Scrutiny? I can see where Scrutiny might possibly be used on Lock on Target as I guess you would be anticipating their next move and what most people would do in such a case, but the other uses just seems damned odd.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Navigating on a 2d plane even if it is 3d in real life is still a lot easier, mainly because the map and the mapreader will pretty much always have a natural point of reference provided by gravity. It's easy to get your bearings if there's no confusion over where directions such as up, down, left and right are located in relation to the map and to the mapreader.

In space (a more "fully" 3d enviroment for mapreading purposes), it's a lot more tricky to get a sense of where up, down, left and right are. Especially if you're not particularly close to any planetary bodies for use of reference. Most of the ime you have to go by reading the closest visible stars and then determine where you are and in which direction you need to travel to get where you want to go, and once again the fully 3d enviroment will make things tricky (after all it's pretty easy to determine where north is by looking at the stars on earth, but using the stars for reference points in a fully 3d enviroment where you might not even have a clue as to where "up" and "down" is would be more complicated and would need a different set of calculations).

Having a natural gravity source makes navigation so much easier for everyone involved, even for sub-marines and aircraft which usually operate in a more "true" 3-dimensional space than a person standing on the ground trying to get his bearings with a map.

Graver said:

Considering that we're talking about sensors that pick up signals of the starship's immediate surroundings several thousands kilometres out, a Search based test wouldn't really reflect what's going on when reading the sensor readouts.

I'd guess that the standard augur array is outfitted with sensors that pick up information of the surroundings in a wide variety of spectra (infra-red, ultraviolet, alpha-, beta- and gamma radiation along with other methods of detection), this would all be accumulated in probably several cogitator banks and they would do their best to try and translate all of this information into an "image" of some sort. But here's the thing, not all starships come with an inbuilt hololith display. And considering the fact that most cogitators seem to have rather primitive imaging system (think computers from the 70's and 80's with black backgrounds and green letters and numbers), trying to get a good image of what's actually out there would be a matter of SCRUTINIZING several stacks of numbers and values gathered by the sensors and trying to piece together what all those numbers are indicating.

For instance, one particular sector of the sensor readouts might show an area of space with a lot of "-0"'s (whatever the hell that means, im just picking a random number that might be used by the starship sensor cogitators), but also a conglomeration of "+5's", "+3's", "+8a's" and "+16's". Now depending on what the configuration of that conglomeration looks like, it might just mean that there's a ferrous asteroid out there, BUT a scrutinizing Explorer might notice that some of the numbers are configurated into a pattern that looks too regular than a natural asteroid, and that it could be either a drifting starship hulk or maybe even a pirate raider going on silent running.

Although most likely the Explorer reading all this would have dozens of underlings on the bridge who go over tomes worth of data they will most likely have been instructed to only deliver the data that might look interesting or suspicious to the Explorer doing the Active Augury (for instance, they would most likely not bother giving him reams of readouts that only show dead space and some natural background radiation), but once he or she's go all that data it would be a matter of scrutinizing the numbers, trying to find things that are "out of place" or "irregular" than you might expect from a normal readout.

Varnias Tybalt said:

What you described, indeed, wouldn't be Search... it would be Logic. Again, the alteration to the Scrutiny skill doesn't make sense when comparing it to it's original function.

Edit (for clarity of point): you put forth that it would be scrutiny because numbers are scrutinized closely. By that argument, when searching a room for clues, that too would be scrutiny as the investigator would be scrutinizing the scene closely looking for irregularities, things that don't belong, or things that, in the context of the investigation, seems important. One could break a code by submitting the cipher to close scrutiny when looking for the pattern that would reveal how it's all put together. An objects value could be ascertained by closely scrutinizing the object looking for faults, traces of age, and tell-tell signs of it being a forgery...

I have to admit, I thought it was Scrutiny because the character making the test is making a judgement call based on the opinions of the actual techs doing the scan. It represents the Explorer deciding whether or not to trust the instincts of the crewman who has to interpret that string of grainy green-on-black "-0 +5 +3 +8a +15" (or whatever the augury cogitators parse it as).

That works, Alasseo, so I think that's the explaination I'm going to use. Makes perfect sense, when you think about it.

MILLANDSON said:

You can always find a way to justify a bad call (look at VT's above argument), but that doesn't mean it's not a bad call. Logic does make far more sense if you're doing any of the actual work yourself. If you accept the reasoning that it's all done second hand, then starship gunnery should follow the same way since you're just reading ranging results from a bunch of gunners and selecting which one to order them to fire with.

HappyDaze said:

Unless, of course, you are sending the targeting information to the batteries, in which case your own Ballistic Skill (in the proper definition of the term Ballistics) would be used, as you are figuring out the targeting, it's just that someone else pulls the trigger.

And it doesn't make it a bad call, it makes it a bad call "to you". There is a difference. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad, it's just not what you would have wanted. Different strokes for different folks, and all that jazz.

I agree that for world and feel reasons there are problems, but it really works well for game play reasons. In other Sci-Fi role playing games I have played their have been a whole slue of technical skills for things like starship combat. But what happens in the game is you get charactes who spent their skill points (or what ever) on being able to be good in their space ships, and aren't as effective in the areas of the game. Any you also get characters who ignore the technical areas of the game in favor of other things. Sure this seems to be the very essence of game balance, but it makes for a less fun game.

Character built in these other games sort of pick the part of the adventure that they will excell at. In space combat the one (brash pilot) character who built himself to be good in space combat goes crazy, and no one else can really do much. The dificulty has to be set for the guy who can do stuff in which case the other players take a pizza break becasue they can not really participate at all, or the difficluty is set for the really mediocre-poor skilled players and the one guy just goes to town. It sounds like a cool idea, but being ten times better than you need to be to isn't as much fun as you might think.

Either way the addition of space combat does little to make the game more fun if it requires a whole new set of skills.

In RT all the skills you would use in space combat have uses out side of space combat. So every one can play in all aspects of the game, and every one has more fun. (I will always sacrifice game reality for game fun)

As for the tech-phobic native, who is a really good shot with his bow commanding the fire of your shp weapons, I would just say that he isn't the sort of character that RT is designed to make. You Players should not be makeing him as a PC. The PC's are the officers on the ship, they have the added skills, that let them applie their own BS to commanding the ship. I actually like the president here. Maybe my archmilitant can use his BS in some way to command a gun line down on a planet, where you have 600 men with lasguns shooting at a charging Xenos herd. Why not, sure it's an abstraction, but it is a useful abstraction for PC that are all to one degree or another supposed to be leaders.

It has been pointed out in atleast a couple of posts, that my 'wooden-eye Bob' directing the fire of a ships batteries wouldn't be a proper RT character. I agree to the point that should a character originate from a primitive world, it should be stated in his origin path that he has somehow gained knowledge beyond his origins.

However, when using Dark Hersey character creation method and importing a feral world character from DH to RT, the feral worlder suddenly can use his primitive skills with starships. Here is one more occasion what in my opinion would benefit from talent/s, which would be "basic starship operations training" or something similiar to that direction.

I have said it before and will say it again. Why on earth is it so difficult (-20 modifier, difficult) to fire a lasgun, even though you can use an autogun, but when directing fire on a starship scale, everybody is qualified. It takes proper training to know how to send targeting information to a ships macrobatteries. I refuse to believe that a simple "shoot the biggest enemy ship!" can be counted as a proper way to direct fire.

If you are importing from DH, you may wish to take that into account. Have them spend some time, and maybe XP, training with ship systems. RT is not a follow on for DH. Characters can be easily transferred, but the RT rules take into account an RT background.

Little Dave said:

No, the starship combat rules take in account that the firing character has a BS, not that they are of rogue trader/explorer backgrounds. So the rules apply to orks, eldar, rogue traders, grox, wolves, and anything else that makes its way onboard the ship.

I dont know what the big deal is, if it is to be fixed its one freaking 100XP talent/skill that can be a free add on to existing skills or made as a free "trade" for another starting skill.

This is something I very casually stepped around by just BSing an answer. The group's Arch-Militant is technically the ship's Master-at-Arms, but he also rolls his BS for weapons during a fight. It'd be a bit much for him to be both Master Gunner AND Master-at-Arms, so instead I just kinda handwave it. It so happens that the Master Gunner is as good at shooting as the Arch-Militant, and that's that.

At some point I might make up an NPC Master Gunner and have the Arch-Militant's player roll for him, so he has something to do in space battles without warping reality, but I'm not sure how popular that change would be.

I've been thinking along the same lines, especially when it comes to Arch-Militants. Every Character Class has a crucial ship-board role: Captaincy, Warp Navigation, Telepathic Communication, Morale, Logistics, Helmsmanship. But the Arch-Militant is just some sort of personal bodyguard. I would much have prefered some sort of Master Gunner OR Strategist that has a functional/leadership role just like the others. Perhaps in conjunction with Starship Artillery Systems talent along the lines of the other weapon talents. When it comes to "everyone getting to participate" chances are that the guy with the highest BS will be the one manning the cannons anyway, so I don't really see the limitation there

Why not just use table 8-9 NPC Crew Ratings on page 214? And then have that modified by the character who is assigned whatever leadership duty and his or her Command skill and related talents. So a grisled veteran with Command +10 has experience with crews and combat (in general, how to lead, listen and get their point across by yelling) and can tak a Crack Crew and fire with BS 50, but if he were a Captain Kirk type with Command +20 and Talented (Command) the same crew would be at BS 70, heck even an incompetent rabble would be at BS 50 under the Captain Kirk type.

But on the other hand, Cook's Mate 2nd Class Olsen, who doenst have Command, would totally botch the entire operation, forcing the crew to fire at half their normal BS as he is unskilled in the use of Command. Now he is issuing bad orders, poorly, not listening to his crew leaders and team leaders and failing to apply new updated information, proper dissemination of information and is yelling and cursing at everyone instead of elading them.

Now you can apply other abstracts to the crew base ratings such as certain talents like Peer and Enemy, Good Reputation, Iron Discipline and so forth.

You could also have the command skill affect other starship rolls, such as piloting and even sensors and what not. It reflects the leadership role a character has perfectly, allows a ship to exist on its own crew without comman involvement as well as shows how the crew can get stammered by a bad leader or even inspired by a great leader.

Course, it makes Command a very very valuable skill to have. So you could make Command a Broad skill with the following subcategories: Starship Gunnery Command, Statship Piloting Comman, Crew Command and so forth.

It is an interesting proposition, and of course the realistic option. But on the other hand, what use is realism in the Grim Darkness of the Far Future....

I would tend towards a solution where you can either use the base line of the crews skills (augmented by Command or the like) or your own skills directly. i.e. you can exhort your gunners to aim properly, or you can shove them aside and plot the barrage on the combat augers yourself. *

* In this case, re: the discussion above, you would probably want to add an "artillery" talent. Seeing as how you can use the crew instead of the PC:s it becomes less of an issue of certain characters don't have that talent.

Problem is, it's starting to get messy rules-wise

Etepete said:

Was going for more logical and one that uses existing skills PCs may already have, or ones that are already in the book and easily expanded to broadskills.

Etepete said:

While that is fun and very dramatic for RPGing, I still dont see it as based on your own personal BS. Learning how to fire artillery is much more then just your hand eye coordination, perception, breathing and how steady your nerves and hands are. There is trajectory, calculations involving the physics involved, such as going from gravity to 0 gravity and into gravity again (I assume each ship will have a minor gravitational pull, being they are 1KM-3KM long or so).

Then there is the sheer number and size of guns on these ships. This isnt just one cannon (erm, canon) firing, its a hell of a lot of barrells and guns blazing, all firing on certain trajectories, coordinates and rates to create the best volley possible. Personally I am a fair shot at the firing range when we go. I am also a decent photographer. So I would say I have not so bad a BS or PER (not like super high amazing stats, Id still be killed in the 40Kiverse LOL). But when I have been around the triple 7s and other artillery pieces I havent a clue how to fire that **** thing and filming and photographing them do it I can tell you, it is hell of complicated, takes at least 5 guys and this isnt even near the size of a weapon on a starship.

Therefore I would allow PCs to augment events (as they are mighty heroes of the Imperium and all) by applying skill bonuses, Perception Bonuses, Fellowship Bonuses, Intelligence Bonuses and even Willpower Bonuses equal to the appropriate skill bonus (1/2, +10, +20, +30 with Talented) and Characteristic Bonus (tens digit) when appropriate and necessary. Id even let Fate Points to be spent/Burnt by PCs and appropriate talents be used.

Etepete said:

I agree, or expand certain talents and skills to include these. I am not overly fond of how the game would rather add more uses to skills then add more skills. Its more of an aversion to the unfriendly nature of careers as they are, adding a new skill would involve listing even more tables as to where these skills fit on what charts for what careers as what ranks and for what price? For example, in the Sister Game of Dark Heresy, the Radicals Handbook recently added the expanded skill use of False Facade for Chem Use. WTF? What does Chem use have to do with applying make up? Now every combat drug addict, chemist, alchemist, and pharmacist can use their Chem use skill for better mke up disquises? Sure, soem of the reasons make sense, but overall, wouldnt that be better as a new skill or talent? Maybe not, but IMHO some of the newer uses for skills are better as new skills.

Most complaints I have heard against the adding of these new talents or skills is of the nature of "yeah but who starts with them?" and "where do they come available at on the rank paths?" And i dont want to get into that argument or debate here, but I think adding 2-3 appropriate skills wouldnt be too hard to do in a future supplement. Especailly when they are largely just add ons to Pilot, Command and Tech Use.

Etepete said:

Actually the game became quite messy when they decided to stay with the Dark Heresy style career paths, have 20 pages of Feats (I mean Talents) and go overboard on Endeavours and NEW -parts better-overall not as good- PSY RULES. So adding a talent or two or skill or two to help determinewhat starship functions are Advance Skills, what are Basic Skills and what are Talent or base Characteristic Oriented is no getting messy. If anything, the lax detail in starship combat as it currently stands is very, very messy and reeks of old school RPG mechanics (Im looking at you Star Frontiers)

You could make a talent:

Voidfairer's Spirit

You're connection to your vessle allows you to use personal skills and charateristics during ship operations.

It should be given free to each RT charater at the Lure of the Void part of their path. Any NPC voidfarer should have it. All Orks should have it at birth because of their intuitive sense of tech. For those that don't have it, it should be a fairly cheep Elite Advance (100xp) for anyone who survives a space battle or two.

But each RT character should definately have it from day one, you wouldn't be hired without it.

TraderJB said:

That's very elegant! I might pick that up as a house rule.

Just assume anyone who's serving in a full time capacity on board a starship would have it.

And a planetary governor off his planet for the first time can still direct the cannon crews with his Command as per above!

p.s. For some reason I have the title "Space Legs" stuck in my head. Or maybe it should be "Void Legs". But that is very, very academical