On topic: In our short lived OW game, one of the players used a plasma cannon and had disastrous luck firing the **** thing. It overheated a half dozen times in 2-3 sessions. RAW, you take damage, or you drop it. So he dropped it every time. His turn following that was always the same: half action to pick it up, half action to brace it. He was not impressed with the thing.

That seems more like an argument for why it should be kept. If you drop a plasma gun to avoid damage there should be negative consequences to that course of action.

Also "a facetious attempt to argue from authority some grognardy position" should be "a facetious attempt to replicate the tone of a grognard arguing from a perceived position of authority". Seriously, if you're going to call so many people on proof reading, at least get the grammar right

Actually I think the grammar of what I wrote is sound. "to argue from authority" is the verb of that clause with "some grognardy position" its object. The order might seem strange but I don't see anything wrong with it. Yours works as well but the meaning is slightly different.

Personally, I'd allow you to take a Reaction Action to Ready your weapon. I was going to say this, then I saw that GauntZero already brought it up, so I guess I'll just chime in on that.

Simply dropping your weapon is actually a legal way to save time in the real life too. They teach this method in the army (seriously). If you look at the photos of modern-day soldiers you can notice that they have a harness that prevents their weapon to fall to the ground when they drop it.

And all you need is to either...

- Take an opponent completely surprised, with his/her weapon(s) holstered.

- Fall vitim to a surprise attack while your weapon(s) holstered.

...to feel the importance of the Ready action .

It may seem like the Ready Action is a "reality tax", but it does serve an important purpose and it is very appropriate. Dropping your weapons is, likewise, very appropriate. Having them damaged from this is.. unlikely to happen. You're just dropping them against the ground/floor/etc.

This is unlikely to damage a weapon unless you're forcefully smashing it against a concrete floor on purpose.

And even then it would probably be hard to permanently damage it.

If a talent that you can get with a session's worth of experience is all you need to totally ignore a gameplay mechanic, why the hell is it a mechanic in the first place?

I would like there to be a way to increase the value of the Quick Draw Talent and make it primarily appeal as an option to seasoned soldiers with training. Perhaps it should have some appropriate prereqs., such as training in multiple Basic and Pistol weapons?

Also, Quick Draw should only apply to Basic, Pistol and Melee weapons that are already prepared in some fashion (Holster for pistols, sling for Basics, sheet for Melee, etc). I don't have the books in front of me, but I don't think there's any restrictions placed on Quick Draw at all - making it entirely possible to retrieve a Lascannon from your backpack by pure RAW (how that lascannon even fitted in there, I have no idea).

Actually "to argue" is the verb, in its infinitive form."To argue from authority" is a verb clause in the sentence. "Some" is colloquial (you're using it in the adverbial, which is limited to North America), and so doesn't fit with the tone, but that's by the by, but its not an object its a determiner (objects in a sentence can only be nouns) so the object is "position" with "grognardy" acting as a morphemically re-analysed adjectival for the object clause.

It's also clumsy Mainly because of your mixing colloquialisms with formal English

Also, you forgot a colon. But I didn't quote that part so I'll let you off

This is basically my job...

I left out the adjectives because they modify the objects in the sentence and are irrelevant in the matter or the sentence's grammatical correctness. "some" in this case was an adjective modifying "position" used to mean undetermined or unspecified; not a pronoun.

I'll admit to not knowing what 'morphemically re-analyzed' means, but I'm confused why you would use "adjectival" as an apparent substantive ajdective when "adjective" would have been clearer.

Also since we're on the topic you've misused its/it's more than once.

I'll give you clumsy.

Yeah, for some reason I've always struggled with its/it's even after getting my teaching qualifications. Half the reason for my many edits is my re-reading things and going "oh...f***"

I know its not a pronoun, its a determiner. I clearly stated that.

A morpheme is a unit of language (as opposed to a phoneme as a unit or sound, or a grapheme as a written representation of a language). All words are constructed of morphemes, a common example of their use in English being prefixes or suffixes.

Morphemic re-analysis is the process by which morphemes are re-evaluated, leading to the creation of neologisms (new words) within a language. In this case you have taken "Grognard" a slang term commonly found as a noun, and added -y to create an adjective. Shakespeare famously created hundreds of new words this way, although I should admit I'm playing a bit fast and loose with the terminology here.

I used 'Adjectival' because you are working within the frame work I used above. Grognardy is not an adjective, in that it is not commonly used as such even within the context of its slang usage within a limited sociolect. Ergo, it is an adjectival construction of the "common" (Ha!) noun form.

This is also how we get words like "Cheeseburger" or "Soundscape"

Yeah, for some reason I've always struggled with its/it's even after getting my teaching qualifications.

I know its not a pronoun, its a determiner. I clearly stated that.

I morpheme is a unit of language (as opposed to a phoneme as a unit or sound, or a grapheme as a written representation of a language). All words are constructed of morphemes, a common example of their use in English being prefixes or suffixes.

Morphemic re-analysis is the process by which morphemes are re-evaluated, leading to the creation of neologisms (new words) within a language. In this case you have taken "Grognard" a slang term commonly found as a noun, and added -y to create an adjective. Shakespeare famously created hundreds of new words this way, although I should admit I'm playing a bit fast and loose with the terminology here.

I used 'Adjectival' because you are working within the frame work I used above. Grognardy is not an adjective, in that it is not commonly used as such even within the context of its slang usage within a limited sociolect. Ergo, it is an adjectival construction of the "common" (Ha!) noun form.

This is also how we get words like "Cheeseburger" or "Soundscape"

Have my babies.

Also, Quick Draw should only apply to Basic, Pistol and Melee weapons that are already prepared in some fashion (Holster for pistols, sling for Basics, sheet for Melee, etc). I don't have the books in front of me, but I don't think there's any restrictions placed on Quick Draw at all - making it entirely possible to retrieve a Lascannon from your backpack by pure RAW (how that lascannon even fitted in there, I have no idea).

This is a definite problem with the talent as stands, and something that seriously needs to be addressed (I had one guy constantly quick drawing a heavy bolter). This is precisely what I mean when I say we can fix things, rather than just going "seems wrong, take it out".

Have my babies.

I'm here all week, try the chicken

So, given all that, what exactly was wrong with what I originally wrote? I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just not clear on exactly what the problem was.

Your use of the word 'some' is either wrong or colloquial, which doesn't mesh well with the (overly) formal language of the rest of the sentence. For want of a better word it makes it feel 'choppy'.

Using 'some' to mean 'unspecified' in the way you did is a usage only found in informal North American English. It would also mean 'some grognard's position' would be more appropriate. Otherwise you're using two (vague) adjectives in a row.

Using 'some' to mean 'unspecified' in standard English should only be used when it precedes a number. (I.e some forty years)

Can we get back to talking about magical space wizards now?

Your use of the word 'some' is either wrong or colloquial, which doesn't mesh well with the (overly) formal language of the rest of the sentence. For want of a better word it makes it feel 'choppy'.

Using 'some' to mean 'unspecified' in the way you did is a usage only found in informal North American English. It would also mean 'some grognard's position' would be more appropriate. Otherwise you're using two (vague) adjectives in a row.

Using 'some' to mean 'unspecified' in standard English should only be used when it precedes a number. (I.e some forty years)

Can we get back to talking about magical space wizards now?

Forgive me, but I'd really like to get to the bottom of this. Given Fgsdfg's post I'm sure some people won't mind the derail. (hey, there's that word again...)

As I'm a North American English speaker, can I infer from your post that under the rules of that variant the sentence is correct? This is, after all, an informal setting. Are you from Britain?

'some grognard's position' would not be equivalent, as I meant that the position in question was unspecified, not the owner of the position. How are those adjectives vague? I can't figure what else they could modify (or be read to modify).

edit: It just occurred to me that we're putting more energy into this derail than FFG has put into any editing they've ever done.

It wouldn't be equivalent, but it would be grammatically accurate. "Some grognard's postion' would still infer the position, held by the grognard, was unspecified (though '...on the matter' would clarify things). Saying 'Some Grognardy position" infers (with your usage of some) "an unspecified position with gorgnard like qualities".

They're vague because Grognard isn't really a word, so to understand the modified form you used would require someone to know the same sociolect as you (I am only aware of the word through your constant usage of it, if I'm honest), and some is (as stated) a colloquial usage.

If we are being accurate I'm from England, which is not as many American's believe, synonymous with Britain. (Britain is the name of the island on which the countries of England and Scotland are located)

You could infer that, if you had not been intentionally using language to the contrary (as is your forte ). However this is also an international setting, so ambiguity should be frowned upon.

Christ, for an attempt at humour this has really got out of hand. Are you learning something about yourself?

Personally, I'd allow you to take a Reaction Action to Ready your weapon. I was going to say this, then I saw that GauntZero already brought it up, so I guess I'll just chime in on that.

Simply dropping your weapon is actually a legal way to save time in the real life too. They teach this method in the army (seriously). If you look at the photos of modern-day soldiers you can notice that they have a harness that prevents their weapon to fall to the ground when they drop it.

And all you need is to either...

- Take an opponent completely surprised, with his/her weapon(s) holstered.

- Fall vitim to a surprise attack while your weapon(s) holstered.

...to feel the importance of the Ready action .

This. Very much this.

It may seem like the Ready Action is a "reality tax", but it does serve an important purpose and it is very appropriate. Dropping your weapons is, likewise, very appropriate. Having them damaged from this is.. unlikely to happen. You're just dropping them against the ground/floor/etc.

This is unlikely to damage a weapon unless you're forcefully smashing it against a concrete floor on purpose.

And even then it would probably be hard to permanently damage it.

If a talent that you can get with a session's worth of experience is all you need to totally ignore a gameplay mechanic, why the hell is it a mechanic in the first place?

I agree. The Quick Draw Talent is problematic for this reason, but it is also, just like the base mechanic, entirely appropriate to exist.

I would like there to be a way to increase the value of the Quick Draw Talent and make it primarily appeal as an option to seasoned soldiers with training. Perhaps it should have some appropriate prereqs., such as training in multiple Basic and Pistol weapons?

Also, Quick Draw should only apply to Basic, Pistol and Melee weapons that are already prepared in some fashion (Holster for pistols, sling for Basics, sheet for Melee, etc). I don't have the books in front of me, but I don't think there's any restrictions placed on Quick Draw at all - making it entirely possible to retrieve a Lascannon from your backpack by pure RAW (how that lascannon even fitted in there, I have no idea).

As you can see from the talent below:

In Other systems I have played, The quickdraw talent (Or it's equivalent) often applied only to a single weapon or weapon type. Thus when the talent is purchased it should only apply to pistols, or basics, or melee. IRL, A student of the martial art Kenjutzu (Sammurai sword) is often taught a sub-form called Iaijutzu which is the drawing striking and resheathing of the blade in a single motion (quickdraw!). That same student could not do the same thing with an Axe or pistol because the techniques would be VERY different!

By the way CPS: I'm sorry I misunderstood! I took your statement at face value. I met Dave a couple of times and he seemed like a pretty descent guy! (And yes, I obviously am that old! )

Quick Draw

Tier: 1

Prerequisite: None

Aptitudes: Agility, Finesse

The Acolyte has practised so frequently with his weapons that they

practically leap into his hands in response to a simple thought. He

can draw and ready a weapon as a Free Action when armed with

a Pistol or Basic class ranged weapon, or a melee weapon that can

be wielded in one hand

The talent can ONLY be used with one handed weapons and basics. You could not Quick draw ANY heavy weapon using this talent!

Is that from the beta updates or the original DH1 rules?

Grognard is actually a French word. Admittedly it's not a mainstream word, but it is used fairly frequently in a games context, particularly tabletop and RPGs, to refer to an older player who enjoys older editions. In a less generous definition (the one I use commonly), grognards are motivated by nostalgia and dislike new game mechanics because that's not the way the game worked when they were 12. They're the people who think Rogue was the greatest computer game ever and it's been all downhill since then.

It sort of sounds like this whole thing stems from my use of an argot word that is less known here than I thought it was.

Personally, I'd allow you to take a Reaction Action to Ready your weapon. I was going to say this, then I saw that GauntZero already brought it up, so I guess I'll just chime in on that.

Simply dropping your weapon is actually a legal way to save time in the real life too. They teach this method in the army (seriously). If you look at the photos of modern-day soldiers you can notice that they have a harness that prevents their weapon to fall to the ground when they drop it.

And all you need is to either...

- Take an opponent completely surprised, with his/her weapon(s) holstered.

- Fall vitim to a surprise attack while your weapon(s) holstered.

...to feel the importance of the Ready action .

This. Very much this.

It may seem like the Ready Action is a "reality tax", but it does serve an important purpose and it is very appropriate. Dropping your weapons is, likewise, very appropriate. Having them damaged from this is.. unlikely to happen. You're just dropping them against the ground/floor/etc.

This is unlikely to damage a weapon unless you're forcefully smashing it against a concrete floor on purpose.

And even then it would probably be hard to permanently damage it.

If a talent that you can get with a session's worth of experience is all you need to totally ignore a gameplay mechanic, why the hell is it a mechanic in the first place?

I agree. The Quick Draw Talent is problematic for this reason, but it is also, just like the base mechanic, entirely appropriate to exist.

I would like there to be a way to increase the value of the Quick Draw Talent and make it primarily appeal as an option to seasoned soldiers with training. Perhaps it should have some appropriate prereqs., such as training in multiple Basic and Pistol weapons?

Also, Quick Draw should only apply to Basic, Pistol and Melee weapons that are already prepared in some fashion (Holster for pistols, sling for Basics, sheet for Melee, etc). I don't have the books in front of me, but I don't think there's any restrictions placed on Quick Draw at all - making it entirely possible to retrieve a Lascannon from your backpack by pure RAW (how that lascannon even fitted in there, I have no idea).

As you can see from the talent below:

Quick Draw

Tier: 1

Prerequisite: None

Aptitudes: Agility, Finesse

The Acolyte has practised so frequently with his weapons that they

practically leap into his hands in response to a simple thought. He

can draw and ready a weapon as a Free Action when armed with

a Pistol or Basic class ranged weapon, or a melee weapon that can

be wielded in one hand

The talent can ONLY be used with one handed weapons and basics. You could not Quick draw ANY heavy weapon using this talent!

In Other systems I have played, The quickdraw talent (Or it's equivalent) often applied only to a single weapon or weapon type. Thus when the talent is purchased it should only apply to pistols, or basics, or melee. IRL, A student of the martial art Kenjutzu (Sammurai sword) is often taught a sub-form called Iaijutzu which is the drawing striking and resheathing of the blade in a single motion (quickdraw!). That same student could not do the same thing with an Axe or pistol because the techniques would be VERY different!

By the way CPS: I'm sorry I misunderstood! I took your statement at face value. I met Dave a couple of times and he seemed like a pretty descent guy! (And yes, I obviously am that old! )

Ah, thank you. I am sorry that I was mistaken. That being said, I would propose a revision thusly:

Quick Draw

Tier: 1

Prerequisite: Special

Aptitudes: Agility, Finesse

Talent Groups: Pistol, Basic, Thrown, Rending, Impact.

The Character has practised so frequently with his weapons that they

practically leap into his hands in response to a simple thought. He can draw and ready a Basic, Pistol or single-handed Melee Weapon(s) as a Free Action, provided they are readily available on his person (such as by sling, holster or sheet).

This Talent may be chosen multiple times, each selection applying to an additional ranged weapon Type (Pistol, Basic, Thrown) or melee weapon Damage type (Rending, Impact). In order to take this Talent, the Character needs to have Weapon Proficiency in the appropriate weapon Type (Pistol, Basic, Thrown or Melee).

Maybe a bit inelegant, but I'm not sure what to do about it.

Grognard is actually a French word. Admittedly it's not a mainstream word, but it is used fairly frequently in a games context, particularly tabletop and RPGs, to refer to an older player who enjoys older editions. In a less generous definition (the one I use commonly), grognards are motivated by nostalgia and dislike new game mechanics because that's not the way the game worked when they were 12. They're the people who think Rogue was the greatest computer game ever and it's been all downhill since then.

It sort of sounds like this whole thing stems from my use of an argot word that is less known here than I thought it was.

Unless its a commonly adopted loan word then its still part of a sociolect (in fact sociolect is pretty much the definition of 'Argot' in the French usage). Nothing in this changes my point.

Also using the French word for slang doesn't stop it being slang and more than calling yourself an Otaku makes you less of a nerd (generalised, not aimed at you)

IRL, A student of the martial art Kenjutzu (Sammurai sword) is often taught a sub-form called Iaijutzu which is the drawing striking and resheathing of the blade in a single motion (quickdraw!).

IRL, A student of the martial art Kenjutzu (Sammurai sword) is often taught a sub-form called Iaijutzu which is the drawing striking and resheathing of the blade in a single motion (quickdraw!).

Usually transliterated as kenjutsu and iaijutsu respectively. Iaijustsu is also sometimes refered to as battojutsu.

You are correct on both counts. I was trying to use more common terms for people who may not be students themselves. I Said Sub form because IaiJutzu/battojutzu is often taught as part of Kenjutzu (Though not usually Kendo). It is in fact it's own form but is usually taught in conjunction with the broader Kenjutzu (Art of the sword). That a may be little bit more technically specific.

IRL, A student of the martial art Kenjutzu (Sammurai sword) is often taught a sub-form called Iaijutzu which is the drawing striking and resheathing of the blade in a single motion (quickdraw!).

Usually transliterated as kenjutsu and iaijutsu respectively. Iaijustsu is also sometimes refered to as battojutsu.

I think I just got Forbidden Lore (Weaboo) as a free Elite Advancement.

I think I just got Forbidden Lore (Weaboo) as a free Elite Advancement.

Heh, I practice Katori Shinto Ryu and have for a few years now.

I have a bit of Lore (Weeaboo), but with the restriction that I don't even get to roll for things that've happened in the last 100-200 years

Personally, I'd allow you to take a Reaction Action to Ready your weapon. I was going to say this, then I saw that GauntZero already brought it up, so I guess I'll just chime in on that.

Simply dropping your weapon is actually a legal way to save time in the real life too. They teach this method in the army (seriously). If you look at the photos of modern-day soldiers you can notice that they have a harness that prevents their weapon to fall to the ground when they drop it.

And all you need is to either...

- Take an opponent completely surprised, with his/her weapon(s) holstered.

- Fall vitim to a surprise attack while your weapon(s) holstered.

...to feel the importance of the Ready action .

This. Very much this.

It may seem like the Ready Action is a "reality tax", but it does serve an important purpose and it is very appropriate. Dropping your weapons is, likewise, very appropriate. Having them damaged from this is.. unlikely to happen. You're just dropping them against the ground/floor/etc.

This is unlikely to damage a weapon unless you're forcefully smashing it against a concrete floor on purpose.

And even then it would probably be hard to permanently damage it.

If a talent that you can get with a session's worth of experience is all you need to totally ignore a gameplay mechanic, why the hell is it a mechanic in the first place?

I agree. The Quick Draw Talent is problematic for this reason, but it is also, just like the base mechanic, entirely appropriate to exist.

I would like there to be a way to increase the value of the Quick Draw Talent and make it primarily appeal as an option to seasoned soldiers with training. Perhaps it should have some appropriate prereqs., such as training in multiple Basic and Pistol weapons?

Also, Quick Draw should only apply to Basic, Pistol and Melee weapons that are already prepared in some fashion (Holster for pistols, sling for Basics, sheet for Melee, etc). I don't have the books in front of me, but I don't think there's any restrictions placed on Quick Draw at all - making it entirely possible to retrieve a Lascannon from your backpack by pure RAW (how that lascannon even fitted in there, I have no idea).

As you can see from the talent below:

Quick Draw

Tier: 1

Prerequisite: None

Aptitudes: Agility, Finesse

The Acolyte has practised so frequently with his weapons that they

practically leap into his hands in response to a simple thought. He

can draw and ready a weapon as a Free Action when armed with

a Pistol or Basic class ranged weapon, or a melee weapon that can

be wielded in one hand

The talent can ONLY be used with one handed weapons and basics. You could not Quick draw ANY heavy weapon using this talent!

In Other systems I have played, The quickdraw talent (Or it's equivalent) often applied only to a single weapon or weapon type. Thus when the talent is purchased it should only apply to pistols, or basics, or melee. IRL, A student of the martial art Kenjutzu (Sammurai sword) is often taught a sub-form called Iaijutzu which is the drawing striking and resheathing of the blade in a single motion (quickdraw!). That same student could not do the same thing with an Axe or pistol because the techniques would be VERY different!

By the way CPS: I'm sorry I misunderstood! I took your statement at face value. I met Dave a couple of times and he seemed like a pretty descent guy! (And yes, I obviously am that old! )

Ah, thank you. I am sorry that I was mistaken. That being said, I would propose a revision thusly:

Quick Draw

Tier: 1

Prerequisite: Special

Aptitudes: Agility, Finesse

Talent Groups: Pistol, Basic, Thrown, Rending, Impact.

The Character has practised so frequently with his weapons that they

practically leap into his hands in response to a simple thought. He can draw and ready a Basic, Pistol or single-handed Melee Weapon(s) as a Free Action, provided they are readily available on his person (such as by sling, holster or sheet).

This Talent may be chosen multiple times, each selection applying to an additional ranged weapon Type (Pistol, Basic, Thrown) or melee weapon Damage type (Rending, Impact). In order to take this Talent, the Character needs to have Weapon Proficiency in the appropriate weapon Type (Pistol, Basic, Thrown or Melee).

Maybe a bit inelegant, but I'm not sure what to do about it.

I like this but I would leave melee as a single category. I realise it's not perfect but there's not really much difference between readying an axe or a mace. (They both are typically hung from a thong from a belt hook of some kind). It's not perfect but we're not trying to be Hyper realistic. (If we were the position of the magazine on a pistol would greatly affect the ability to quickdraw!)

Grognard is actually a French word. Admittedly it's not a mainstream word, but it is used fairly frequently in a games context, particularly tabletop and RPGs, to refer to an older player who enjoys older editions. In a less generous definition (the one I use commonly), grognards are motivated by nostalgia and dislike new game mechanics because that's not the way the game worked when they were 12. They're the people who think Rogue was the greatest computer game ever and it's been all downhill since then.

It sort of sounds like this whole thing stems from my use of an argot word that is less known here than I thought it was.

One : I love new mechanics.

Two : I love new games.

Three : I love finding new games with new mechanics.

Four : I like complex involved games that require thinking.

Five : I like games that are balanced top down, not bottom up.

Six : Expressing my concerns for exciting system becoming, bland systems that try to please everyone in some misguided attempt at pleasing everyone, and making everyone feel special, in no shape or form makes me a Grognard.

Seven : Do not ever call me one again.

Eight : Have a merry Christmas.

Nine : Sorry for the off topic post, but CPS has been doing his usual talk crap to everyone who doesn't agree with him, or offers counterpoints he cannot in any other way than by name calling or being derogatory.

Ten : Sorry Nimsim I am on the band wagon for Ready Action staying, and this is because I have only ever seen weapons being dropped in truly dire situations in the games I take part in ( I do not GM) for example my rank 9 gunslinger getting jumped by a genestealer, I managed to roll well enough to notice it in position prior to ambushing us, so I got to drop my auto pistols, and quick draw my two Mauler Bolt pistols, instead of being dinner without knowing much about it, I actually managed to drive it off, ( I paid for it later when it eviscerated me and I had to burn a FP to survive.)

So in my example, we had a suspenseful situation, I had to pass a stupidly hard awareness test, and then react fast enough to be able to respond, I could do so because I had spent a lot of EXP on being fast and deadly with pistols, I was out in front because I was the most suited character to the job, in your system, anyone could have done it, in the current one, there are repercussions for not playing well, taking out the actions you proposed is yet another step into blandville for me.

Characters should have roles, they should not all be able to do the same things, sure some overlap for the sake of viability, but not everyone can do the same stuff equally well, do you not find that boring?

"I could do so because I had spent a lot of EXP"

"I could do so because I had spent a lot of EXP"

Of course. Spending 'exp' is a means of differentiating a character.

Including at things like awareness, fast reactions, and weapon competence.

Clearly things like that could be 'streamlined' for faster combat, with less difference between characters.

But not everyone is going to like that.

Especially perhaps for a game with more tense investigation elements.