Company or higher abstracted war game? I'm just reading through Final Testament (I bough it to get a better feel for encounter design) and, without spoiling anything (I hope) every combat encounter I've read so far involves the players being with a highly abstracted number of allies, fighting enemies who are in unwieldy groups. Meaning the encounters are impossible without there also being highly abstracted allies "helping" the PCs either fight highly abstract enemy units or numbers of regular NPCs that are, at least judging by the NPC guide in the core book, impossible for the PCs to handle. An example of this being a group of trooper quality NPCs numbering in the mid 20s.

So is this the way the game, in general, is supposed to be played? If so I totally misinterpreted the game, and if I'm honest I'm sort of disappointed. I am not running pop RPGs when I want to play tactical war games, and if I want to play tactical war games there are many much better choices (for instance the game that this was supposed to be an rpg adaptation of).

No, that's only in the first part of the adventure.

In this case, split up the number of enemies among the number of friendlies and don't worry about what the other friendlies and nastiesare doing. They're just background color. Say , you have 4 squads of IG and 20 traitors. Just have your squad fight 5 traitors and don't worry about the others.

I'm not understandig the question?

While I haven't had a chance to read Final Testament, it was my understanding that the game is about the Imperial Guard. Where the game is based around the Player's Regiment where the Players are part of a squad which is part of a Platoon that happens to be one of many in a Company in which I'm sure there is more than one in a Regiment.

When the Regiment is whittled to the the only the Players without companions and those survivors ARE the Regiment. And the Players ar looking at you as why are they being sent to fight and army…

Unless you are playing a specialist… Say two ratling sniper team or ratling squad assigned to the kitchen. How about a Stormtrooper Killteam of 5? A 3 man sanction psyker unit with their handlers? Maybe several junior Commissars in charge of discplining a regiment of hive gang consripts or Penal?

There is always the vehicle side of things were the Players could be part of a tank crew or several tank commanders each with their tank crew…

As for the opposition is each foe a full stat encounter or are you treating them like the Players with companions. I believe in the core book there are rules where it is suggested that the cannon fodder is treated exactly like their name sake and saving the full stat villain as the "boss" fight or for special encounters for the Players to deal with. Meaning you could have 20 full stat traitor guards, 10 full stat Traitor gurds and 10 "companions" or 5 full stat traitor guards and 15 one wound flunkies.

What angle do you want to play up? The big war picture with a cast of thousands where the Players are a small but important cog in the military machine or a highly specialized squad that's always called because they always get the job done?

Which war movie are you trying to capture the feel of? Glory? Platoon, Band Of Brothers, A Bridge Too Far? All examples of the Players being part of war machine. Or maybe your thinking Gun's Of Navarone? Dirty Dozen? Aliens? Saving Private Ryan? Where the story is about the squad and not much else.

@Dark Child

The OP is just pointing out a major flaw with the game system. Mainly that as part of Imperial Guard you are going to be part of fights with more allies than just the PC's and many more enemies than the PC's themselves can handle without any rules or guidance for how to properly run it.

When the game is the squad vs a similar number of enemies it works out pretty well. As soon as you get into multi-squad level combants it breaks down. Yes there are rules for those gigantic army vs army fights where it's seathing masses of troops but those rules don't really work at a platoon level.

The preview adventure they made up for rpg day, the adventure in the back of the book, and the adventure in the GM guide are all entirely focused around the squad while a large part of Final Testament involves dozens to hundreds of allies and hundreds to thousands of enemies and there just is no easy way to run that type of encounter in the core rulebook.

It seems like the first concrete rules for squad level combat won't come out until the Enemies of the Imperium book.

@OP

Final testament is imo poorly written and you should use any of the other available adventures first or come up with your own material. The Ciaphas Cain novels are a great source of material as well.

I think Final Testament is great. I'm running it right now (the first part) with no hitch at all (hey players don't read this!)

HINT: You're not supposed to be fighting the enemy in a giant pitched battle.

bogi_khaosa said:

Except the first part explicitly has multiple sections of fighting and gives you number of enemies and stats for all of them. While I agree that the whole thing should be done narratively through a series of skill checks and role play that is very much not what the adventure itself is telling the GM. Even before the crash landing the whole part where the players leave their seats and try to regain control of the ship is terribly written and the adventure even suggets that you can just skip it and do it through narrative. Also, even after you manage to escape from the cave system it still has the remnants of your company going through multiple battles before making it to a base. Just reading it makes for a cool story but the adventure itself offers very very few tips for how to actually run the whole **** thing.

While I may be complaining here, these are the types of adventures I think are cool and I really want to make these larger epic combats work. I just don't see how to do that well based on the core rules and the few tips offered in this adventure. It just seems like I'll have to do so much ad-libbing and on the fly type stuff they may as well have just printed stat blocks, bullet point plot summary, and a map for the first section.

PS one thing with running the first part of FT is realizing that when tanks are being transported via dropship, they are secured against impact (and so cannot just up and roll), their guns are obviously not loaded, and it probably takes a little while for the engine to start up. Stuff that it is hard to take care of when you are under heavy fire.

By the way, a bunch of mere Ork boys can do a number on a Chimera just by jumping on top of it, since their Choppas will penetrate its top armour a significant portion of the time and large numbers of those will do Crits (hello Tearing!)

Droma said:

In the case of my players, fighting them and get slaughtered by them while desperately trying to load up their tanks so they can run…

The In th Cockpit thing is optional, but if you don't know it, you'll take a lot more damage, lose a lot more squads in the crash, and the tanks will take a lor more damage (although it is not quantfied how much exactly).

Don't bother with the NPCs. Say, "your convoy is under fiure, X guys are moving at your tank." Don't worry about the others.

bogi_khaosa said:

While this is all good advice and does help running that part of the adventure the issue is that the adventure itself doesn't say any of it and that is a problem. From just a reading of the adventure and the core rules none of those things are easy conclusions to make and it mostly comes down to being a creative DM at which point you have to ask why pay for the adventure?

From just a strict reading these problems come up.

1. As far as I'm aware it doesn't say anywhere that transported are secured while being transported.
2. Nothing about whether guns are loaded or not.
3. Nothing about how long engines take to start
4. You don't start that section of the adventure under heavy fire and unless only a single person is seeing to each vehicle that all could be accomplished in a single round. As the rules only state how long a gun takes to load and nothing about points 1-3.
5. There are no concrete rules for bonuses/penalties for climbing a vehicle.
6. There are no rules for how many creatures can climb on the vehicles.
7. There is not such thing as top armor, you're simply assuming it's rear because that is the only possible way the orks could damage them without heavy weapons.

Once again, not trying to knock how you run it. I'll probably run it in a similar fashion. However the adventure and the core rules do not state any of this. Assuming there even were rules for any of what I listed, how the heck are you reasonably figuring out if over a dozen orks on top of chimera are doing any damage to it. The shear amount of dice rolls is pretty stagering. Spread that out over who knows how many chimeras and you have major issues, unless you just gloss over it via narrative, which once again the adventure does not suggest at all.

Edit: Saw your latest post. Once again it's a good way to run it but those are all experience GM calls and the adventure itself and the core rules do not help you this. GM's should not have to rework large parts of the adventure or rules material in order to get something they payed money for to work properly.

Just a side note: (IMHO) the Crash scene in The FInal Testament is… not the best part of the adventure (so to say). You should take this into account !

Droma said:

There is top armour. It has the same value as rear armour.

The adventure is heavyily dependent on GM modification (and, I think common sense -- of course tanks and secured and loaded during transport) but that's par for the course with FFG. The whole regeiment can't get into the vehicle bay in one round, etc.

You don't adjudicate what happens to the NPCs at all, except as extensions of what happens to the player's squad. For instance, I'm running this right now, and each dead comrade or each PC in Crits (there are a lot) = an NPC squad destroyed or at half strength.

Orks are going to start leaping from buildings once they enter the stockade. Most will miss (not much Acrobatics there) but one or two Boyz on top of a vehicle is going to be a problem.

I expect maybe 4-5 Chimeras to make it out.

bogi_khaosa said:

Why should they? They can barely scratch the Chimera (dealing 3 points of Damage maximum with their choppas), while the actual manauver to hit the fast moving vehicle while on balancing on the top of it is something around the dimensions of a Very Hard/Ardous Weapon Skill Test…

The best way to solve the crash scene is to completeley lock down the path towards the cave system and simply let the players escape through the "entrance hole". And scrap the chimeras. Otherwise, it is just a huge opportunity for the players to do something stupid. Like capture the Ordinatus (been there, done that), do a heroic last stand, get lost in the caverns (taking the wrong turn towards the settlement instead of the exit could have funny outcomes) or stop for some sightseeing.

bogi_khaosa said:

Droma said:

Here you go. Pg. 275:

"The Facing the attack hits determines how much armour
the attack has to defeat in order to cause Damage to the
vehicle’s Structural Integrity, as well as what weapons and
important systems can be damaged and can be destroyed
through Critical Damage. Any attack that hits the top or the
bottom of the vehicle counts as having hit the rear facing."

Which incidentally means bomb squigs (meltabombs on legs) can do serioius damage.

It also means that any orks with Choppas on top of the thing (or in back of it for that matter) are going to be doing a 1d5 Crit every couple of rounds or so, once you count that Tearing and Furious Assault.

If this is played properly, there should be hundreds, thousands once ethey start coming in from the tunnels, of boys coming out of tunnels, jumping off buildings, swarming the tanks, clambering all over them and tearing them apart. Your Chimeras are doomed, albeit it may be a slow death.

The only way out of here is running.

AtoMaki said:

They're moving at the exact same speed as the vehicle if they're on top of it, and they're using All-Out Attack of course (+30). Hell they're attacking the FLOOR for all intents and purposes. What's the bonus for attacking the floor?

One of of 5 of hits that damage the Chimera (on average) will do a 1d5 Crit. One of 4 of those witll damage a passenger. One of 5 of those with reduce armour on that facing by 1d10.

This is of course while bomb squigs are being released under the treads, again attacking AP16 armour.

There are hundreds or thousands of boys, once ethe eones in the tunnels from neighboring settlements come out. It is a question of when, not if.

EDIT: no I realize this is not explicitly spelled out in the book, but it's what Orks would do and what would happen in this scenario logically. The longer you hang around, the more Orks show up, and the less time un til your APCS get slowly opened up like cans exposing the juicy humies inside. Ork causualties will be monumental, but they don't care.

The way I played the opening scene of final testimate is to give the players various objectives with time limits or other restrictions to make it seem like a race to escape. For the escape from the dropship I had them decide which way they wanted to escape (no matter what i would mess with the story so that they would somehow end up on the vehicles). When on the vehicles i had them do various things like shooting bomb squigs so they dont blow up the vehicle or have some ork trukks pull up alongside them and try to board.

My point is that the book just gives the setting and guidelines, the GM can change the campaign to suit their playstyle. If something seems unweildy then ignore it and substitute your own rules.

And my point is the GM shouldn't have to for material they payed for. I can understand if it was a free pdf download.

Overall though the pre-published material hasn't been too bad. All the other adventures and parts 2&3 of final testament are pretty good. That first section is just rather glaring in how badly it's written.

The original post was a huge over reaction on my part. The fact is, I never, ever run published adventures so I shouldn't have reacted so harshly.

Now saying that, I will give you some more measured critique. First of all, I like the system mechanics a lot, however the adversarial NPCs provided are woefully inadequate. As someone trying to put together a cogent campaign with the rules and the characters of Only War that is nothing like what I saw in Final Testement, I have to invest a lot of work importing NPCs from other systems.

Regarding Final Testemant. I still don't like it. Story wise it's actually a nice adventure; however the choice of having entire acts of the adventure be dominated by combat encounters that I feel (and that I is important I suppose) require the players and GM to engage in highly abstracted combats where the players are ultimately only a minor part--and yes I think a fire fight where the players a squad amongst 10 companies engaged with multiple enemy companies fits this--your running the risk of making the characters irrelevant.

My personal take on rpgs is that the characters should never feel this way. The game should be about the characters, not their regiment, platoon of 27, or masses of vague companies engaged in large scale rolling combats.

There is a time and place for games that fit the later. This is why we play other games like ETO or WiF. Not why we sit down to pnp rpg.

Again though, when I posted originially I must have been in a bad mood as a published adventure does not make, or break, the system it was written for.

Droma said:

I just quickly read the opening scene and I'm not seeing the same issues that you have for it. Like how days prior to drop the Players had to load and sometimes unload "their" dropship only to re-load it again. So they would most likely become intimate with the in ands outs of the dropship. They know where most of their gear is stored and how it is stored. It's getting ready for a combat drop and the book mentions this as well that any vehicles are ready to roll once the cargo doors open.

I would imagine tank crews drill to enter and exit their vehicles quickly, may a turn to get in a vehicle, a turn or two to get it moving.

Doesn't the core rules give suggested bonus for task rolls?

There are plenty of opportunities to make this scene yours, the book gives ample room to do this. There is a chance if the squad is part of an armour unit that they may defeat initial contact with the enemy.

My complaints come from the lack of chain of command and the eventual train track that any non-armoured unit has to take to get out of this scene. I could see things playing out differenty but that would completely depend on your group…

ZombieLenin said:

But part of Only War is about the Regiment. Only War for the most part depending how you want to run it should be about the Imperial Guard involving a cast of hundreds if not thosands. The Players will stand out and if you as the storyteller plan for it they will be at the key points of any story or battle. Or through their deeds become the go to squad to get things done.

I see this as being part of something bigger.

Darck Child said:

I guess that's a matter of perspective. I see the regiment as an important part of the motivation and backstory of the characters. It is also the primary engine that drives the story, but not the focus of the game. I guess I see the regiment filling the same role as the Inquistion (Inquisitor) plays in DH, or that DW and individual space marine chapters play in Deathwatch.

bogi_khaosa said:

You ain't serious, and it hurts me …

On a different note, the big thing in OW is that you can have an elite fireteam if you want, no problem. You just have to build you characters smartly (so min-max everything) and you will be fine. Currently, my OW group is a "Tactical Strike Team", a 6-strong assault unit armed with carapace armour and ripper guns and tasked to defeat the most problematic enemy positions. I can't even remember when we took part in even platoon level fights, and we are still doing fine. It is just the 4+2 of us (4 PCs + 2 levelup!Comrades) against the world, and it is a blast (quite literally sometimes)!

ZombieLenin said:

The focus of any story should be about the Players. Having said that, the Regiment is more than the backstory it's more the backbone for everything. Character creation starts from building the Regiment first. It's the regiment defines the character. The Regiment is in every scene (unit insignia, stardized kit, fighting doctrine). The characters fight for the Emperor wearing the colours of their Regiment. There is a certain pride that comes from being part of a regiment, or elite squad. There is a brotherhood formed from being part of something bigger.

In my opinion…

Darck Child said:

I actually do not think this is incompatible with what I am saying. I guess what I am trying to say is this: when you think about soldiers stories in film, books, or comics that follow around an individual group of soldiers, the combat scenes, while taking place in a larger context, are focused on what these particular soldiers go through. At least for the most part.

So, you can run a game where the regiment informs and is an important part of the story, but the combat encounters, in my opinion, need to center almost exclusively on the PCs.

ZombieLenin said:

Any combat that happens with the Players or their squad would be the focus of that scene. How much you play it up or not is up to you. How much weight it carries is also up to the Storyteller.

It doesn't matter if the squad is out in the jungle by itself, defending a fire base with their platoon, or part of an invaison force of thousands when comabt begins it will still be focused on the Players.

If your concern is how to handle large scale battles and deterimine who wins, who loses, casualties, equipment lost or destroyed then you're right. To my knowldge there are no rules that I've seen or remember so far that gives guidance on how to resolve it.

As Storyteller you get to decide how it all comes together or falls apart.

Would rules be nice sure, but are they necessary?

I use the following movies which I've already touched on as inspiration how to set or narrate a combat scene:

Saving Private Ryan , Aliens , Dirty Dozen and a score more are all perfect examples of squad combat.

Glory is a great example of Regimnetal combat.

A Bridge Too Far is a great example of multiple forces working together to try to achieve an objective.

Maybe if the Players were placed in a pivotal task/location in the large combat scene they would stand out more.

Should the Players vox in for artillery support, armour support, airstrikes or what other big guns are needed - then it was the Players that called it in. Should you send n the calvery before the Players call for it then as the Storyteller you just updatged them and stole their thunder.