http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4595

Askellon Endures!

–Tim

Very exciting changes to psychic powers! However, I can't help but notice that there's no indication of what PR a power requires to use effectively. Was this omitted by accident?

EDIT: I just re-read the new rules and it all makes sense now. Each POWER does not have an associated power level -- the psyker chooses the power level at which he wants to manifest the power. Ignore the initial question.

2 requests (I beg of you!)

1) Get rid of the Pistol Grip while you still can!

2) Lay-Out detail: Could we have the 3 advancement tables (XP costs) collected on a single page, preferbly at the back of the book, with permission to copy, for reference? Or possibly just down loadable pdf? It makes advancement easier for the nay sayers.

2 requests (I beg of you!)

1) Get rid of the Pistol Grip while you still can!

2) Lay-Out detail: Could we have the 3 advancement tables (XP costs) collected on a single page, preferbly at the back of the book, with permission to copy, for reference? Or possibly just down loadable pdf? It makes advancement easier for the nay sayers.

2. This would be great.

Askellon Endures!

So does Tankred

Why does a Red Dot Laser Sight keep you from putting a telescopic sight on? I can understand only gaining the benefits one sight (and a laser sight is more for hip aiming or a quick shot compared to the slow adjusting full action aim of the telescopic. Why is there only a limit of 4 modifications? A modern autogun with bayonet/aux GL, pistol grip, custom stock, larger magazine, etc. fills up the list before you can even engrave a devotional script or anything else. Will you add in ones like the underslung shotgun?

Red dot probably attaches to the same spot a telescopic sight does. It's likely that the telescopic sight also has a similar function to the red dot that can only be seen through the scope.

in which case it would make far more sense to not limit you to one sight per gun but rather to limit you to benefiting from one sight at a time. This is how guns work. It is not especially hard to have a laser sight and a scope on a gun, but it's rather useless to employ both at once.

in which case it would make far more sense to not limit you to one sight per gun but rather to limit you to benefiting from one sight at a time. This is how guns work. It is not especially hard to have a laser sight and a scope on a gun, but it's rather useless to employ both at once.

IMO, this kind of distinction in the core rules would be needlessly technical. It seems like a perfectly reasonable house rule but the current rule of one sight per gun is clean, easy to use, and serves its purpose well.

Aww, still no individualized phenomena tables?

Aww, still no individualized phenomena tables?

They have a page limit, and that's sort of a waste of space

I would rather they add some of the missing gear, like "normal" power armor, xenos mesh, mesh cowl, double barrel shotgun, las carbine, RPG and a couple fun lower power weapons (civilian firearm, disposable pistol, etc.)

I would rather they add some of the missing gear, like "normal" power armor, xenos mesh, mesh cowl, double barrel shotgun, las carbine, RPG and a couple fun lower power weapons (civilian firearm, disposable pistol, etc.)

The magic of the influence system at work!

I'm gonna be using the Macharian Handbook as a supplement still, I think.

2 requests (I beg of you!)

1) Get rid of the Pistol Grip while you still can!

2) Lay-Out detail: Could we have the 3 advancement tables (XP costs) collected on a single page, preferbly at the back of the book, with permission to copy, for reference? Or possibly just down loadable pdf? It makes advancement easier for the nay sayers.

Absolutely agree with the above. One more thing:

Go back to making all the accurate weapons heavy . This ups the "cost" both in xp and in combat time to get the extra 2d10 that makes them so deadly in combat. Since a sniper rifle and a man portable laser canon now do the same damage, there needs to be a counterbalancing defect to keep our pistol grip sniper rifle dual wielding sharpshooters from autokilling all the boss npcs in the adventure.

I don't know if this is spelled out in the Beta,but in OW (or is it BC?) it says that you cannot pistol grip sniper weapons, or indeed any bulky weapon.

I don't know if this is spelled out in the Beta,but in OW (or is it BC?) it says that you cannot pistol grip sniper weapons, or indeed any bulky weapon.

It mentions not pistol gripping in the errata for this system as an example, but the game mechanic text states that you can pistol grip any basic weapon. This means that they are leaving me to be the heavy and to house rule something that they will believe that they have a right to under the rules. I would prefer not to have to be the heavy .

The other reason that I would like the accurate weapons to be heavy is that they do so much damage that they do kill shots with most instances of firing. It is VERY easy to get 3d10+8 with an accurate weapon. With an average humanoid having 15 hp and defense 6, the average shot like this takes them from unhurt to crit 5, with crit 10 about 40% of the time. I just don't feel that it is unreasonable to make the person brace and be relatively immobile to gain these advantages. This was the idea from DH2B1 and I thought it worked well.

And then you take Bulging Biceps and your huge muscles suddenly allow you to be very accurate with sniper weapons without bracing? LOLwhut?

And oh my god, there is a basic weapon class in the game that can kill an average human with a single shot! This will make players and mooks feel unsafe while in combat! Unacceptable !

The problem isn't that it can kill things in a single shot.

What actually matters, as I have pointed out ad infinitum et nauseum in other threads, is not damage per hit, but damage per round, and relative balance between weapons. And Accurate weapons typically eclipse semi and full auto weapons in damage per round, which.is the issue. Making such weapons less of a specialist weapon, which is what they are supposed to be, than a standard go-to weapon.

(Yes semi and full auto can do suppressive fire and it can be fired on the move and hit multiple targets, but do they counterbalance?)

Math time!

Choosing two weapons of the same availability, long las and assault shotgun, using the BC stats because they're right next to me, with the shotgun firing semi auto. I'm going to see how it works at 30m, 15m, and point blank so Scatter gets to have its various levels of effect. Giving them all a half-action aim.

At 30 meters (in fact, up to its full short range) and 15 meters, the long las has an 80% to hit and does average damage per attack of 7.5.

At point blank, the long las has a 100% chance to hit and does average damage per attack of 10.2.

At 30 meters, the assault shotgun has a 50% chance to hit and does average damage per attack of 2.25.

At 15 meters, the assault shotgun has an 70% chance to hit and does average damage per attack of 3.75.

At point blank, the assault shotgun has a 90% chance to hit and does average damage per attack of 11.55.

So, the long las does better than the assault shotgun in every circumstance except at point blank range, in which the assault shotgun is marginally -- marginally -- better.

Now, if the long las is not firing in standard mode, but in one of the other variable modes, it is either practically identical at PBR to the assault shotgun, or superior. In overcharge mode it does 11.2; in overload mode it does 14.1.

(None of this includes chance of RF or minimum damage per DoS or chance of dodging.)

I make no hypotheses. Draw your own conclusions.

But making it Heavy won't solve the damage problem at all... Yeah, the pressure to take the Bulging Biceps talent would be higher, but that's all.

Personally, I think the problem is not with the damage model of the Accurate weapons but with the damage model of all the other weapons (as they are too weak).

Now, an interesting counter factor is Mighty Shot, which is much more effective on burst weapons, somewhat counterintuitively.

How is that counterintuitive? Several mighty shot would be better then a single one, no?

How is that counterintuitive? Several mighty shot would be better then a single one, no?

Counterintuitive thematically, to me personally.

It seems to me that the most obvious solution to the Great Accurate Problem is just to require a Called Shot to use it.

It really does seem to simplify matters, but brings you back to the problem of called shots being awful.

Are they awful though? I know called shot rules are WONKY, but is bad? Once the enemy gets into cover, let's say...a wall then you effectively only hit arms/head which screws you over so badly when it comes to ranged attack. So...yeah, I guess I agree that the rules for called shot make little/no sense but i don't find called shot inherently bad.

Math time!

Invoking math time and not showing your workings is an automatic F.

It is awful because it requires a full action to use and has a -20, while single shot and aiming is +20. Called shot as a variant of a single shot attack with a -20 penalty let's you use a half aim to bring it down to -10 which is more doable. Called shot as a -20 modifier (as in DH1e) makes the final modifier a +0 with half aim and single shot. As a -30 (to counteract the single shot +10) it brings it down to a -10 like the half shot example.

Then with the called shot talent (-20 to +0, so let's assume +20 bonus to called shots)

It would bring the half action called shot +half aim to +10.

-20 modidifier = +10 again

-30 modifier = +0

The key point is a half action though and preferably a variant of single shot. It lets you have more tactical flexibility and for anyone who thinks that these shots should be hard to make (even with the talent), there are a lot of expert shooters who excel at this.

Basically, I want called shot, even with aiming (and maybe the talent) to be not as viable as making a single shot, but with good BS and training, certainly doable and a viable option.