While leafing through the Rogue Trader corebook, I spotted something at the very end of the description of tech-use on p88. When directing servitors, tech-use functions identically to command. It suggest to me that with murder servitors or NPC combat servitors, an Explorator suddenly becomes lethal at hit and runs. And if you somehow have the numbers of combat servitors to board a ship, even better. At the very least, defending against boarding on a ship that has a servitor crew suddenly becomes a lot easier.

I'm not sure if items such as combi-tools would contribute to these checks (despite saying +10 to all tech-use, perhaps fixing servitors on the spot?), but MIU and electrograph interface may well as the explorator commands his forces via vox blurts of binary chatter. That talent suddenly becoming far more useful.

Any thoughts on this? I'm sending a query to FFG and will post a reply here as I receive one.

Uhh as cool as this would be.

But just for the sake of balance...

No just no. The Explorator can get crazy high values (70 base+30skills+20MIU+talent+assists) still nets 130 +2 DoS.

Errhmmmm. No chance of failure unless meeting another Explorator.

As much as i like the Adeptus Mechanicus to stand superior, this might be just the little tad bit too much. And all that can be achieved without even really trying.

sounds good to me, however: one explorator can never cover all servitors on his own or even a lot of them. It's the camera problem (just ask the london police): a lot of cameras allow you to look where you want, but you still only see one screen at a time. So 20 camera's don't allow you to see 20 different spots in real time. Coordinating 20 servitors that are operating in different corridors at the same time is nigh impossible. That's why you need soldiers who can think for themselves (or at least officers).

Nor will he be able to boost their weapon skill to silly levels. Also: he has no tactical acumen so the directions he can give to his servitors won't suddenly make them death incarnate.

I don't think assistance would be practical in a time-limited hit and run attack. That said, tech-use can be pumped to silly-high levels.

As for the viewpoints, 20 views at once isn't necessary. Twenty a minute, with adjusting those who need adjusting (say, attack that guy who's attacking you) should be sufficient. And a magos with Scholastic Lore (Tactica Imperialis) knows plenty about the relevant tactics.

in hit and runs though you don't know where the action is. Basically if he gives an order to late the servitor is already dead (like: focus on the guy behind you first as he has the melta gun). Twenty a minute means that he has 3 seconds per servitor per minute. That's not a lot. He won't be able to interact in a meaningfull way during that time. Not against live attackers. Remember that a turn is in theory about 6 seconds. So the explorator is there for about half a turn every ten turns. I've slayn demons in less turns then that (significantly less in fact: one or two turns with lucky hits from the party).

And he may have SL (Tactica Imperialis), but he normally only gets it at rank 5 as an explorator (same for tech-priests btw). So that is unless he takes it as an elite advance which'll cost him dearly in other situations (depending on how cheap/expensive your GM makes it that is). And i'd wager that the advantage they can get from it'll be minimal as well when applied to hit&run situations with a clumsy servitor (which is basically designed to win by applying brute force, not by being a nimble attacker that darts in and out with stinger hits).

Basically, unless you are forgoing realism entirely this ought to be no problem as it isn't that powerfull. Compare that to Step Aside and Lightning Attack for example. Those are vastly more powerfull.

Badlapje said:

Servitors arent necessarily that clumsy, or that stupid. Well they are lobotomized, but they carry the firepower to make up for that. Servitor technology is not limited to do a single order and forget everything else. They can do simply tasks themselves.

Its like playing a strategy game against somebody else. Except that your pieces need more orders, but have bigger sticks in return.

Murder-Servitors also work great, regardless that command is used to direct them.

Voronesh said:

Not that clumsy? Agility 20 for a battle servitor (charron pattern) and no dodge. Yes it has heavy weapons and a hit from those'll hurt. But you're talking hit & run actions here. Not battlefield actions. You're talking fighting in corridors with lots of things that you really don't want to blow apart with the multi-melta or plasma cannon. There's lots of twists and turns to use for cover and with your 20 agility without the dodge skill people are pretty much guaranteed to hit your arse. Even with the 14 damage mitigation they got (8 toughness and 6 armour) odds are that their 15 wounds'll be down in no time. Not to mention that their perception is only 30 so characters who got silent move in a decent amount will be able to simply sneak up on them and deliver a point blank barage into their armour plated flesh.

I'm sorry: but only rank 1 explorers might struggle with a foe like this. Anything beyond that should have more then the skills & equipment to simply blow them apart. Your Explorator can't boost their WS or BS (both of which are very low at 30, even without dodge that means they're only likely to hit 1/3 times). He can't boost their doge or awareness. Basically he can only direct them to start shooting in a certain direction. And only for 3 seconds every minute in the scenario you described (and do take in mind that 20 battle servitors will never make a dent in an enemy starship).

Nope, i'm not seeing the problem.

Servitors are not AI. They function according to preprogrammed routines, the quality of which depends on who made them (so on how much you payed for them). They'll never be able to perform complex tactical assessments. And in 3 secons/minute, neither will your explorator.

If my understanding of the question is correct, it was not about the ability of the elite cadre centered on the Rogue Trader and their direct retainers to deal with battle servitors, but about the skill tech-use replacing command in the case of servitors and the impact of it on hit and run actions. Where I do not doubt that a well equipped character will sweep with disturbing ease through (basic, they can always be improved) servitors, just compare the stat line of a battle servitor with the masses of humanity. Then a battle servitor becomes a quite different foe. If you imagine yourself standing there with your clumsy 2 shot shotgun and trusty knife, while this chainfist and heavy bolter armed thing of doom wades through your shipmates, the picture changes. In my opinion, a battle servitor is a terrifying foe, except perhaps for those few exalted souls who can buy the best weapons in the expanse, power armour, displacer fields and the training of weapon masters beyond compare.

I agree with Voronesh. The ability to push Tech-Use to very high levels would make replacing the command skill for hit and run actions (or for boarding of or with a servitor manned ship) completely overpowered. The battle servitor and telportarium is allready a bit too much of a good thing, to add an insane tech-use test to that equation seems another one of those munchkins dreams that a good GM prevents. In the interest of both players and GM it must be said.

Friedrich van Riebeeck, Navigator Primos, Heart of the Void

Badlapje said:

Youre looking at normal battle servitors. And a Heavy bolter firing down a narrow corridor, aint that bad eh?

Plus a hti&run action. Does the Omnissiah care if you use up a resource (plasma cannon plus fleshy servitor) to successfully destroy the enemy (insert component). You are employing Explorers against servitors in your example, problem is the explorers probably wont be there in time, before the the important servitors get teleported back and the unimportant ones blow up (only the crew should defend against a boarding action directed by a command roll of the lord captain). In this case, i do not believe rating 30 ratings (what a bad pun ) have that much dodge either; neither do they have powerful weapons to take down servitors.

Regarding the Tech-Use test, yes way too overpowered, regarding the fluff actions, i dont see too much of a problem.

20 guys is what im using as a maximum for a teleportarium hit&run attack. Up that number for whatever you need.

All i can see is that you take a hit&run action (single opposed skill roll) and make an actual personal combat scenario out of it.

Think about it this way, you are in a narrow valley (the gangway) and all you have is a lasgun (the RT doesnt want to buy bolter and melters for everyone aboard the ship) and a human tank (servitor) with an oversized weapon (Heavy Bolter) is plodding towards you.

Servitors can follow basic order like walk there (map is saved on servitor brain+implant) and kill anything that moves. Drop bombs at preplanned locations and then await teleport. Any missing initiative will be fine-tuned by the Explorator, and a lack of agility is made up by extra armour.

Badlapje said:

When I talked about an explorator checking servitors I was not talking about them ordering each servitor to fire individually, but making adjustments and deciding who needs reinforcements. Servitors can and do follow simple instructions such as "kill everyone who isn't me in this area". And since realistically very few enemies are going to as well equipped and skilled as explorers, a lot of those enemies are going to die horribly even to normal servitors. I did note the low agility for "common" battle servitors but that doesn't matter so much against armsmen with shotguns and breakable morale. When running RT, I envisioned murder servitors as a step above battle servitors, being quite expensive to acquire as a ship component with superior programming and agility (people's mileage may vary). If not, then how to explain the ability to use murder servitors effectively with command in boarding actions, let alone a +20 bonus? That does not sound ineffective or clumsy to me at all. And one elite advance (or waiting until rank 5) should not be crippling for a tech-use using character, especially if the party wasn't relying on them for hit and runs to begin with.

Step aside and lightning attack are great one on one, but completely irrelevant in most hit and run actions unless the GM is "playing it out".

Try using murder servitors (the supplemental ship component) - those have a lot more intelligence especially to hunting and killing - they are prob something like arco-fagellents from witchhunter codex. Tech use can also mean that rather than controlling each servitor, the explorator is field repairing disabled servitors back so somewhat functional levels, in which case i would say a combi tool should apply its bonus. A strategic turn is a long time and represents an extended battle rather than a quick exchange of fire. A hit and run with an explorator leading would prob be like the explorator leading a force of 50 - 100 servitors to a disable a ship component. Along the way the explorator would be patching up servitors, screwing around with enemy ship functions like blast doors, local artificial grav, life support & lighting and occasionally be involved in combat.

yeah yeah, i know i made personal combat scenario but just to point out that using tech-use instead of command isn't what makes it overpowered. You are trying to make it sound more powerful by pitting opponents against it that are basically just fodder. But those'd be fodder regardless of whether or not you have an explorator with tech-use directing the servitors. And in that example i'd even use the hord-rules from deathwatch against the servitors because there's likely 100's of crewmen with a lasgun but only a small number of servitors.

You can have 2 scenario's:

1. where the explorator is amidst the servitors, in which case there's honestly no big difference between him being there or a character with command is there? I see no reason to say that it's overpowered for him to use tech-use.

2. where the explorator is on another ship or at least a long ways away. In which case his using of tech-use to command them would be less effective then someone tagging along with the servitors using command (or tech-use to achieve the same).

Basically: servitors are unthinking automatons which have a tactical functionality depending on who programmed them. Why it would be overpowered to allow the Explorator to command them i still haven't heard. Yes it's very likely that they will achieve succes more easily. But then again: we're talking about automatons here that do as they're told. Is it that far-fedged to you all that an explorator could devise a piece of code and transmit it to them so that they adjust their target? Do you honestly imagine that the battle will go distinctly different? Taking in mind the limitations of one person directing 20 automatons simultaneously (the 3 seconds/automaton/10 rounds)?

1. Make up your mind.

2. Then post.

You are saying servitors are just stupid automatons. But then you go on saying that Tech-Use is far from overpowered.

Well whats better?

Rolling against 130+2 free DoS or against a 90 plus maybe 2 free DoS. The Borkenness of Tech-Use stems from the fact, that it is very easy to max out the +60 hardcap compared against command.

Plus we have very different views of the combat circumstances aboard a ship. Which doesnt make the discussion any easier.

How is saying servitors are stupid automatons in contradiction with saying that tech use is far from overpowered? If anything it's in line with eachother.

I don't care about combat situations on board. I care about the likely effect of the use of tech use rather then command as a skill to control them. It makes sense that using technology to control them (ie programming language) rather then your own voice and demeanour (which is what the command skill is) would work better to control servitors. The likely effect in a combat however is null and void, as they remain rather stupid automatons that function according to preprogrammed routines that are limited in their scope. Given equal weaponry/armour, i'd wager a human should still win, if he's smart he can likely destroy an entire host of them without getting killed himself.

The only problem i could see is if you'd allow a player to substitute tech-use for command when performing the opposed command test in a hit&run action. However, that is not what the RAW say. Nor is it what anybody with an ounce of common sense would make them out to mean in RAI. The rule on p88 as referenced by the OP is only in reference to directing servitors. Not in reference to actually resolving an opposed command test on boarding actions.

So again: no i do not think this ability is overpowered at all. Nor is it illogical to me that tech-use is far easier to crank up to ridiculous levels then is command.

Ahh now it finally makes sense.

So we are talking about a very different skill application then? Which is not what is implied in the thread title btw. Next time if you go on a tangent, please mention that beforehand. Could have saved us alot of hassle.

Sure go ahead. Its your game.

Now try to understand my position, within this thread; oh wait, you dont care about shipboard battles... Why do you post here then?

And if you think Servitors are stupid automatons, you need to be on the receiving end of a few arco-flagellants, which qualify as murder-servitors. Stupid but hardly crappy. I know i cant change your mind, and its your game. But the background has enough cases of servitors being very, very useful in combat.

I've never said servitors aren't usefull in combat. I just say that they are stupid automatons. As in: they cannot think for themselves, they only do what they are programmed to do.

Voronesh said:

Badlapje said:

Bold text by me.

Having an arguement for the sake of an arguement?

Please consider the word "stupid automaton" within the context of 40k Imperial Guard warfare. Structured along WW1 fighting principles. Guardsmen arent paid to think, even most of the command structure is there to keep the soldiers in line, and not give tactical advice.

Voronesh said:

You are correct, most IG officers are not trained for strategic command - at best they have tactical command skills. Strategic command is far removed from the actual battle field and if I'm not wrong is within the hierarchy of the Departmento Munitorium not Imperial Guard. Most of the IG forces act as an extension of strategic command. However there are some distinguished officers (special characters) and hardened vets are usually leeway even within this strict structure.

This allows for flexibility - green and unbloodied regiments can be paired with veteran strategists and still be formidable, while veteran regiments are suitable for young strategic commanders as they are more likely to tactically adjust to command blunders.

How much of a "stupid automaton" your servitors and even troops are depends on what level of "craftsmanship" they are. Best ones have more experience or cognators, poor ones are green behind the gills or have faulty cogniators. The most elite troops, such as storm troopers can take orders like a dumb unit, but if you leave them to their own devices will act like veterans.

Quite correct.

PDF Forces, while technically not Imperial Guard, are structured rather similar, maybe lacking the heavy weapons. But they are quite probably poor quality. IG run of the mill is most of the time common quality.

Good quality might be veterans (and green stormtroopers) and Best quality might be Imperial stormtroopers with experience.

Creating an analogon for servitors. Crew servitors which have cleaning as their primary function probably are poor quality. Servitors with heavy bolters and such would feature as common quality.

Good quality and best quality are rather hard to assign, but since arco-flagellants are the only prominent example left, they are bound to fill both. Good quality servitors might be normal combat servitors with higher grade implants.

But i believe that there is little difference between the tactical acumen of a normal trained (from our perspective itd qualify as a short course of combat 101) Imperial guard platoon and a unit of servitors led by a lower techpriest.

I always like to compare the Imperial Guard with the Red Army of WW II. Loads and loads of relatively badly trained infantry that can just be used up as needed (Rifle Divisions), armoured and mechanised units that give mobility, shock and operational level (don't forget this part) mobility (Tank and Mechanised Corps), veteran units that get better equipment and more logistic support (Guard Rifle/Tank/Mechanised) with all of this supported by copious amounts of artillery. The more and the bigger, the better! Even the Commissars fit right in.

Tactically, this gives the IG a slightly sluggish feeling, pounding their way through with weight of numbers and loads and loads of firepower. Operationally, they won't be at their best either, often lacking the initiative to act fast enough. Strategically, they will on the other hand not be that bad, as the Imperial Guard 'Stavka' will be able to recruit the best out of a very large manpower pool. Of course, I should have started with a proper definition of tactical/operational/strategic levels. And Grand strategy and logistics, to get the whole picture. But I allready feel I am digressing, so back to the boarding bit and what I wished to say.

Funnily enough, might be a spot where our IG might get good at if the Soviet Army comparison is continued. The dogged determination and willingness to take immense casualties will serve them very well in boarding actions, which are a supremely tactical operation. Basicly, boarding is fighting in a build up area: Stalingrad. Which really might give that answer to what I should do to get the boarding rules going, but I allready forsee too much complexity cropping up. In each case, you need tactical acumen, not technological skill. However good you are at programming your servitors is not as important as how good your skill is. If you let your perfectly commanded well programmed servitors drive in a fire sack, you are in for a nasty surprise.

FvR

Hrmm but remember, boarding actions also include vast numbers of ratings. And servitors not made for combat.

Both participants better used elsewhere. Especially concombat servitors.

So if run down to a hit&run action the "sluggish" servitors are actually at an advantage, due to a few adjectives. Armour and firepower. While Stalingrad is a good example, it can also provide a good example of how a heavy tank can dominate any battlefield, if ATGs and other wepaonry like that are missing.

On a hit&run attack, the enemy can only muster ratings for long time. And he will be reluctant to use melter/plasma weaponry within his own ship. OTOH the attacking froce is going to be supremely well equipped and has few thoughts about a few extra hols here or there; unless said holers lead to the puncture of a fuel line or some such.

In this case, the heavy infantry of combat servitors can slaughter the opposition and create a tiger fear status within their enemy. (They got big guns and are immune to our flashlights)

Full on boarding is a quite different matter entirely.

Voronesh said:

Congratulations on being able to bold text. I bet you are proud of yourself, i know i am.

All that not withstanding however, you didn't disprove my claim. Stupid automaton is exactly what servitors are. More even: they'll never be more then that as artificial intelligence is forbidden by the word of the Emperor Himself.

Yes yes, the average soldier might not be the brightest pencil in the box, but then again: that has nothing to do with the nature of servitors now does it? It might be an important consideration should we be discussing the actual usefulness of servitors in boarding actions, but we never did that (though granted, you are putting up a good effort to turn this thread into exactly that). We were first discussing the threat of allowing tech use to replace command when commanding servitors (as opposed to allowing it to be used in an opposed command test for boarding actions). And then you felt compelled to zero in on my defining servitors as "stupid automatons".

Just so we don't go there again:

Stupid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look up stupid in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Stupid may refer to:
Stupidity, a lack of intelligence

Automaton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with automation as a process.
This article is about a self-operating machine. For other uses, see Automaton (disambiguation). For Automata, see Automata (disambiguation).

An automaton (plural: automata or automatons) is a self-operating machine . The word is sometimes used to describe a robot, more specifically an autonomous robot . An alternative spelling, now obsolete, is automation.

Now should you wish to discuss the merits of imperial guard vs servitors, feel free to start a thread in the main RT forum. However, i only wished to answer a rules question here, not to keep discussing the same thing endlessly and then be drawn into a prolongued discussion about something that honestly has little bearing on the question at hand.

The problem of a Tiger is that it is so **** hard to get up the stairs. And in that narrow alley over there. Or swing my gun right to get that **** pesky infantryman with that molotov cocktail! Where is my infantry!

That being said, I fully agree that a hit and run party is different from a boarding action. A hit and run will be a sudden strike of what are essentialy special forces executing a strategic mission, hitting a radar station here (there go your augur arrays) or a SAM base there (no more torpedoes for you!). As such, they will pit well armed, well trained and in 40k, well armoured troops against specialists and rear guard personnel, easily slaughtering them and scaring the living daylights out of their foes. But then they have to run as reinforcements are on their way and however good they are, they won't have the numbers to stand against the relieving forces. Who might have some good troops as well (heliborne elite light infantry to combat the raiders) or just plain heavy stuff (nothing destroys light raiders as armour!). Eldar aspect warriors, chaos marines, mekboyz giggling while they blow stuff up...oh dear. I can see how our poor lay tech priest who is happily chanting the litanies of activation of the ancient piece of augur array entrusted to him gets positively terrified thinking about it.

Obviously, a hit and run is something completely different from tech-use. A brilliant programming specialist who is able to make his servitors do handstands and feels the hum of a plasma reactor to perfection is not a tactical genius. Unless of course he has made work of it, represented by command skill.

FvR

P.S. Hmmm, now I am wondering how to set up my boarding teams. I guess I will take a look at Soviet streetfighting tactics.

In case of running out of arguements, please refer to ad hominem attacks. Also Wikipedia is a great source for citation (ask a scientist ).

And now you try to get us to start a new thread, when you yourself were unable to do just that. Stating that you answered a rules question, while actually failing to do so does not make a strong argument either.

I dont think more needs to be said on the matter.

Back to the Tiger:
Who needs stairs when you have a Tiger tank . Bring down the whole building instead!

Yes boarding and hit&run shoudltn use Tech-Use for command. Boosting it is way too easy.

For boarding team setups i suggest comparison with Airborne forces. Hit the ship (do the drop), collect your men, form up into an attack force, and complete your objectives.Then dig in, and await extraction (being relieved by infantry divisions).

Due to the fact, that Imperial dropships allow heavier weaponry to be brought along, than a WW2 airdrop even via glider, actual combat teams can be armed to the teeth. You could even bring a few Sentinels or a Dreadnought (if you a re a marine boarding party) along.

Wel, it all depends on how you board. If it is a shuttle based boarding party, you have a limited attack to start with, but if you go for grapples and boarding rams, you have more stormgantries in a ship. In each case, it will be an interesting fight. I suppose that the main goal of the defenders will be to localise, isolate and then counterattack the boarders, while the boarders wish to keep the momentum on their side and keep going. Hmm, this really asks for a reasonable idea of the ship layout to play correctly..not an exact map, that gets too complicated, but a nice sheet where you have the main zones and crucial checkpoints. Can double as the internal battle map during a good old fashioned mutiny as well.

FvR