Ok, so my query is this: The Eldar holo field confers a -40 penality to balistic skill. Imperial player shoots, and thinks that he has hit the Eldar vessel with 5 degrees of success, confering a critical d5 role due to the weapon crit rating of 4. The GM tells the player that he did not hit with 5 degrees of success, only 1 (due to the -40 penality) so does not earn a role on the critical chart. Player disagrees - mayhem ensues. I think the GM is correct. Is there anything in the rules that say otherwise?

Thanks.

A holofield is one of those things that the PCs would notice, so telling them about the penalty before they roll is a good idea for it.

Bilateralrope said:

This. Also, the GM is right. Hell, even if the GM wasn't right by the Rules as Written, the GM is right because he's the GM.

Its kind of a jerk move if you let them roll for damage and don't tell them until afterwords it was a miss.

Just tell the players they see the shots pass through the ship as though it were empty space.

MILLANDSON said:

Mr Adventurer said:

The GM can make mistakes, certainly - we are, afterall, only human - but that doesn't change the fact that GM decision supercedes the rules as written.

The GM has the final say, and is the final arbiter of everything that goes on in any game he runs, regardless of what the text may say in the books. It's Rule #0 of every RPG that has ever and will ever be written.

However, this does not, and should not, impinge upon politeness and common decency within a group...

N0-1_H3r3 said:

The True Rule #0 is that a GM is only a GM so long as the players allow it. I've seen GMs replaced quite often - and actively worked towards it on occasion - when they went against the group's collective wishes, and I've both stepped down voluntarily and been asked to step down when my views didn't mesh with those of a group. Since gaming is entirely voluntary, the GM simply has no power that isn't granted to him by the other participants, so keeping them happy should be a major consideration for everything a GM does.

HappyDaze said:

Which doesn't really work if the players are paranoid about the GM or there's a sense of hostility between the players and the GM. If there's one thing the internet has shown me, it's that far, far too many players regard their GM's as an adversary to be scrutinised carefully, and far too many GMs regard their players as playthings for their amusement.

The ideal situation - the one that should be striven for - is a sense of mutual trust: that the players trust the GM to do what is in the interest of the ongoing game, to make it interesting and enjoyable for everyone (not just the players, and interesting/enjoyable do not mean easy), and that the GM trusts that the players will accept the concepts and conceits of the game and the setting.

The whole matter is the responsibility of everyone - the GM is empowered to run the game by the players, but they have to be willing to let him (or her) run the game, rather than bow to their whims through intimidation. I don't fancy the idea of running a game constantly under the fear of my players trying to eject me from the game because they don't like the way I do things, and it frankly wouldn't produce a very good game.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

This, I saw oh-so-many times.

but i agree when tere's a minus to hit, you should say it: thought the GM might have decided to make it more cinematic: a crack crew taking a shot at a xeno, they're100% sure they'll hit..but they don't. **** xeno tech!

from france

minus one point the eldar manoeuvrability is so much that 90% it will be behind your reactor shooting whithout fear of repreasal. as a BFG impeial player i can tell you that their manoeuvrability is the worts nigthmare. it took you to have more ship than the eldar and to shoot with mines, templates weapons torpedoes etc etc weapons that don't care about holofield.

even that could be not enough because they are faster and can get out of reach of your template weapons. i ddind't run into space fifgt from now on RT so i don't know how to translate it but a lest you have clues.

as for the gm is always right... well if he is right alone chances is that il wil be alone too prety soon...... remenber it s for pleasure not to see someone who like to listening itself.

I'm not sure if the GM actually withheld knowledge of the -40 or not, but either way, if he only ended up with 1 degree of success, he only ended up with 1 degree of success, and thus doesn't get a critical hit.

It'd be kind of like doing an acquisition roll on a best quality item and failing it by 10 points, but claiming you succeeded because without the -30 you had 2 degrees of success.

I totally agree with N0-1_H3r3. The GM is the GM, and what they say goes.

Now, like any game, people should have fun. The GM really should not be considered an 'adversary'. This game (nor most other RPGs) is not Descent, where the "GM/Overlord" ever wins and is an actual opponent. The GM is a facilitator. So, yes, a GM needs to be cognizant of the players' feelings and wishes, and not have a power trip of superiority or else, as suggested, they will find themselves without players. Conversely, the players need to recognize that the GM has an amount of control over everything in the game. That is the basic nature/function of the GM role, to control everything except a PC's actions (and sometimes even those). In a reasonable group, players and GMs will discuss any differences of opinions (best before/after a game) and come to a amenable consensus. Especially during a game, to keep things moving, oftentimes the GM needs to make a decision on the spot so that play may continue. The players need to recognize this, and if they disagree, remember that issue for discussion/review post-game, rather than spending the rest of the session arguing. In the end, though, the GM is the author of the story, like an author of the book. What they say/write is what happens.

Was he using a Lance or a Macrocannon? Macrocannons get -20 instead of -40.

The reason I ask: All the Lances I know have a crit rating of 3 or less. Sunsear/Ryza's have a crit rating of 4, among other Macrocannons. The difference between -20 and -40 is pretty steep. =/

Best thing to do vs an Eldar ship is to get close and board them. With the fragile Eldar hull, and a decent Command rating from the players' RT (or whomever), you should be able to win and score a critical or two and some damage that way, which tends to drive off the pansy Eldar.

Well,

To prevent such problems the GM could describe how the attack doesn't hit with its full force but just the rim of its fire field.
Eldar are ancient and mysterious beings who's technology (heresy) is far beyong that of the Imperium.

Why didn't we hit, it must be personal skills since doubting the machine spirit is Tech Heresy...
Why didn't the GM mention the -40 penalty,....SUPRISE!!!

We never tell GM to stand down, we might discuss it if a particual campaign doesn't work for us (often including the GM) but this has happened only two or three times, one time due to the GM's wife having a baby and the cute little bugger eating away his nights rest.

No, a GM should set clear parameters before the campaign, house rules and what the characters know about the setting (players often know much more).
If there are any disputes, save them for after the session or for during a break, if the situation is life and death for the characters, take a short break, after which you can discuss it.
Another thing players tend to forget is that NPC's can lie too.

These discussions can often be prevented by describing things cinimatically...


Santiago...