Hi!

1. Has anyone created rules for synergy between Fear levels and Intimidation skill?

2. Has anyone created rules for horde magnitude damage based on either?

Alex

ak-73 said:

No and No, though a couple of thoughts...

Fear, at least on 'mortals' seems to have its own terrible effects, that if failed may or may not have an impact on intimidation. At most I'd give a +10 per fear rating to your roll to intimidate, but I'd be inclined to leave the two as separate systems. For marines, if they failed their initial WP check against the fear, I'd apply the standard penalties to resist the intimidation.

For Hord Mag damage, this is a really interesting one- I'd consider adding penalties to subsequent morale checks (when you check for break), or what I like the sounds of better, do something like 1 mag damage per DoS on your intimidation role. I'd allow displays of brute force or clever propaganda speech, so I'd allow for strength or fellowship based tests, depending on how they go about it. I'd also only allow it to work on creatures that can be scared, so no intimidating the folks with the fearless trait. That way you'd not have to try and integrate it in with other horde traits like disciplined, it would just work as regular damage.

Don't have my book with me (if this already exists in one way or another), but applying the fear rating as a negative modifier for a hordes test to break (in the same manner as fear tests), probably wouldn't too terrible or unfair. And probably just do it as -10 per point of fear rating instead of test if 1 point, then -10 per point after that.

My guess is this is in relation to the armour history that gives fear, combined with a player wanting to intimidate foes?

On an intimidate check affecting horde magnitude, I would probably use a system of have the player make the intimidate opposed check, then, with a success, they lose one magnitude, +1 for every X degrees of success, where X is the hordes unmodified WB (not adding magnitude, but applying whatever situational modifiers count in play). Fearless enemies would be immune to this, and of course, in all things, GM fiat wins at the end of the day. Interesting enough to try, but players would probably realize that most of the time its still better to shoot. If pulled off right (major WP hits to the horde), can be devastating (player gets 8 degrees of success due to good test, horde totally fails the roll, and has a modified WB of 1, they lose 8+ mag, can add up real fast).

As far as synergy with fear, I'd say just have it add a +10 per point of fear (that is, assuming the target has not already failed their fear test, in which case I don't see the need to intimidate)

KommissarK said:

Just looke at the rule for marines on this, and if you fail the initial fear check test, you are at a -10 on WP checks per fear level. Much of intimidate is resisted by WP, so it seems built in that you're giving the guy who is scared a penalty to resist, so I would pose the question do you need to give the intimidator a bonus (essentially giving him a double bonus)? This would also give the intimidator essentially double the chance to make you wet your pants- you have to check fear when he first comes in the room, then he get's an additional bonus to make you wet your pants by yelling at you. I'm not saying it's all bad, something just feels....fishy about it.