Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-09-2021, 05:39 PM   #11
Fennefell
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Default Re: Request for Feedback on Warhammer 40,000 Handbook

Update: Preliminary statistics added for Navis Imperialis aircraft. Current aircrafts listed are total scope for aircraft, minus Adeptus Astartes aircraft.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-Xr..._7xYIQq-e/view

Last edited by Fennefell; 12-27-2022 at 05:17 AM. Reason: No speculation about what may or may not be the site's technical and moderatory situation please.
Fennefell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2021, 08:37 AM   #12
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: Request for Feedback on Warhammer 40,000 Handbook

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFix View Post
In short, I'd advise against using Legality Class as a stand in for item rarity, and advise against having multiple different types of legality classes that are seldom about legality and do not really interact with each other. Instead, look into Merchant skill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fennefell View Post
Legality class is meant to represent a conjunction of faction (General, Astartes, Inquisition, etc.) and rarity within that factioann. The "General" subclass maps to the standard LC-4 - LC-0; the other's do not. As noted on page 6 and 7, the other factions map to between LC-2 and LC-0, depending on the item. The standard LC system is not sufficient for the needs in this case, as the granularity is not sufficient. Please reread page 6-7 to understand the exact mappings.

Ok, so having looked into how you're using the numbers for getting types of gear: its a fantastic idea, and it really fits the setting. My biggest issue is that you are calling it legality class, when its really something like its requisition difficulty, or procurement class.
__________________
Be helpful, not pedantic

Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog

Check out the PbP forum! If you don't see a game you'd like, ask me about making one!
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2021, 02:59 PM   #13
Fennefell
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Default Re: Request for Feedback on Warhammer 40,000 Handbook

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Ok, so having looked into how you're using the numbers for getting types of gear: its a fantastic idea, and it really fits the setting. My biggest issue is that you are calling it legality class, when its really something like its requisition difficulty, or procurement class.
Agreed, clear that confusion is possible.

Revision Item: Use Requisition Class instead of Legality Class in tables. Replace LC with RC in all appropriate places. New section - Explicit mapping between Requisition Class and Legality Class; capture explicit mapping from RC to Abstract Wealth and monetary value if possible.
Fennefell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2021, 11:04 PM   #14
Fennefell
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Default Re: Request for Feedback on Warhammer 40,000 Handbook

Revision 1: Fixed minor errors, added section on Navis Imperialis aircraft (and one voidcraft) [page 52-54]. Requisition class system in development; attempting to think of some bright way of handling it better.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-Xr..._7xYIQq-e/view

Thank you for the feedback.

Last edited by Fennefell; 12-27-2022 at 05:17 AM.
Fennefell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2021, 01:56 PM   #15
Thorbjørn
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Randers, Denmark
Default Re: Request for Feedback on Warhammer 40,000 Handbook

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fennefell View Post
Thanks to the people who contacted me to give feedback on my Warhammer 40,000 handbook. If you want to give feedback for what the handbook is, or in future want to use parts before it's released, please contact me. Otherwise, enclosed below is a public release preview of ~60% of the handbook's current scope in an alpha-beta state.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LXT...lcWafdG1b/view
Hi Fennefell

Could you send me or share in a way so I can add it to my own drive, the above document?

I've been working on the same on and off for years, though at the moment mostly with pen'n'table as the goal. But have used it for Pen'n'paper earlier.

cheers
Thorbjørn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2021, 03:03 PM   #16
naloth
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Default Re: Request for Feedback on Warhammer 40,000 Handbook

I skimmed and read chunks. It's clear you've gone to a lot of work and detail.

General thoughts:

1) It looks like a good supplement for a Space Marine (kill team?) campaign. I'd push it a bit more in the Inquisitor direction to open up select xenos, demonhosts, and corrupt types. That just seems like it would be improve variety.

2) The Space Marine template (while accurate and nicely detailed) is awfully bloated. I'm worried that it wouldn't balance well against an Inquisitor, Imperial Guard commando, Eldar, Daemonhost, or Adeptus Mechanicus.

3) For simplicity and flavor I see quite a few possibilities for Talents, bang skills, and meta-traits.

4) Ogryn are generally bigger, stronger, and tougher than marines. I'd make sure at least two of those three things are true in your adaptation. I missed the stats for other most of the other main xenos. I'm guessing they just haven't been added yet?
naloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2021, 06:12 PM   #17
Fennefell
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Default Re: Request for Feedback on Warhammer 40,000 Handbook

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorbjørn View Post
Hi Fennefell

Could you send me or share in a way so I can add it to my own drive, the above document?

I've been working on the same on and off for years, though at the moment mostly with pen'n'table as the goal. But have used it for Pen'n'paper earlier.

cheers
You should be able to download the PDF from the Drive link, there's a download button at the top right. You should then be able to reupload that PDF to your Drive. You can also star the Drive link in your Drive, under Shared with me, but I can't guarantee the Drive link won't disappear at some point. This forum post should be the source of truth for updates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
I skimmed and read chunks. It's clear you've gone to a lot of work and detail.

General thoughts:

1) It looks like a good supplement for a Space Marine (kill team?) campaign. I'd push it a bit more in the Inquisitor direction to open up select xenos, demonhosts, and corrupt types. That just seems like it would be improve variety.

2) The Space Marine template (while accurate and nicely detailed) is awfully bloated. I'm worried that it wouldn't balance well against an Inquisitor, Imperial Guard commando, Eldar, Daemonhost, or Adeptus Mechanicus.

3) For simplicity and flavor I see quite a few possibilities for Talents, bang skills, and meta-traits.

4) Ogryn are generally bigger, stronger, and tougher than marines. I'd make sure at least two of those three things are true in your adaptation. I missed the stats for other most of the other main xenos. I'm guessing they just haven't been added yet?
1) The Inquisition portion is coming. It should be next on the list after finishing the Astra Militarum and the Navis Imperialis.

2) Well, it depends what you mean by balanced. It's... likely never going to be balanced against an Imperial Guard commando in the points or equipment sense, as a very well-trained and equipped human is not comparable to a centuries old supersoldier clad in the best armor and weaponry in the setting. An Inquisitor could, theoretically, go toe to toe with an Astartes given enough weapons training, relics, and powered armor, but they likely wouldn't want to, as they are still just a well-trained and equipped human.

It works out much better in the Eldar in the speed sense; my test campaign had the Eldar perform very well against the Astartes, though that's primarily from a speed and firepower standpoint. A bolt shell will core most Eldar, but even a shuriken catapult can pierce powered armor. The stats for the Eldar will come later, but it was not a problem when I ran it.

I have not touched the Adeptus Mechanicus or Daemonhosts too much yet.

Fundamentally, I don't want to make the Astartes template less detailed if there is no pressing reason to do so. They are stated at their intended power level, which is very high. I may in future offer a secondary template which is simpler, but I see it as a low priority issue right now.

3) Those can be added later as optional rules. My main goal is to provide something that works first, making it fast can come later. I'll likely offer a page or two of suggestions on Talent and Wildcard skills appropriate for the setting eventually. I don't know if I'll touch meta-traits much apart from racial templates.

4) All Xenos are currently not present in this handbook (minus mutants), they will be added later. I am hesitant to make Ogryn stronger, as to not make playing an Ogryn in an Imperial Guard campaign much harder. I'll add a note in my revision list to review them; I may make them SM +2 and 25 ST. I'll need to run the numbers on this. They almost certainly will not be stronger than a power armored Astartes nor as tough. They may gain some additional HP.
Fennefell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2021, 08:14 PM   #18
naloth
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Default Re: Request for Feedback on Warhammer 40,000 Handbook

Quote:
4) All Xenos are currently not present in this handbook (minus mutants), they will be added later. I am hesitant to make Ogryn stronger, as to not make playing an Ogryn in an Imperial Guard campaign much harder. I'll add a note in my revision list to review them; I may make them SM +2 and 25 ST. I'll need to run the numbers on this. They almost certainly will not be stronger than a power armored Astartes nor as tough. They may gain some additional HP.
Why? IIRC Ogryn have always been S5 while Marines were S4. Ogryn have usually had more wounds and equal or higher Toughness. Of course, they weren't a match for a Space Marine due to the difference in armor and weaponry. If you give Ogryn a big club and virtually no armor (flak/whatever), Space Marines will still easily win anything but a wrestling match.
naloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2021, 08:31 PM   #19
Fennefell
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Default Re: Request for Feedback on Warhammer 40,000 Handbook

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
Why? IIRC Ogryn have always been S5 while Marines were S4. Ogryn have usually had more wounds and equal or higher Toughness. Of course, they weren't a match for a Space Marine due to the difference in armor and weaponry. If you give Ogryn a big club and virtually no armor (flak/whatever), Space Marines will still easily win anything but a wrestling match.
I'm only vaguely using tabletop as a reference, but it's a fair point. Let me explain my design space problem.

An Astartes can, points-wise, basically be where ever I need them to be. The standard Astartes armed with a bolter and clad in powered armor was one of the first things I built, so I can use them as an anchor point for design. If you strip out a lot of the fluff and not direct combat stuff, you end up with needing somewhere around 300-400 point entities to directly challenge an Astartes, assuming weaponry of comparable caliber.

An Ogryn can't be that, because an Ogryn needs to play nice with the Astra Militarum, who are significantly limited power-wise. It's well and good that an Ogryn is as strong or stronger than a power armored marine, but that means the player needs to pay for 200 point of ST (at SM+2, +25 levels of ST). If I make them HT-wise as tough as an Astartes, that's another 20 points on top. That makes your base Ogryn a 200 point character, but effectively useless in actual play as they'd get gunned down in seconds and have no skills. You probably need to spend another 50-100 points to make them playable.

That puts anybody who wants to play an Ogryn in a really peculiar situation. If it's a 50-200 point game, they can't afford the template. If it's 200-250 points, they can technically play one, but won't be useful at anything apart from raw strength and not dying. If it's 250+ points, they can play an Ogryn, but will be woefully outclassed by everybody else because 200 point of ST and SM +2 is not actually that useful.

The reason the Ogryn are the way they are currently, is because it gives someone who wants to play an Ogryn the experience of Ogryness at a reasonable point cost. They are playable in a 120-150 point game, and useful at 150+ onwards. It's the difference between stormtroopers playing with an Ogryn + ~200 points to actually be useful, and stormtroopers playing with an Ogryn + 50 points to actually be useful.

So the reason why I'm so hesitant to make Ogryn cost more is because they'd cost more, basically.
Fennefell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2021, 05:47 AM   #20
naloth
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Default Re: Request for Feedback on Warhammer 40,000 Handbook

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fennefell View Post
I'm only vaguely using tabletop as a reference, but it's a fair point. Let me explain my design space problem.
<snip>

So the reason why I'm so hesitant to make Ogryn cost more is because they'd cost more, basically.
If you are aiming for 150-250 point characters with playable Ogryn I can certainly understand that. It just seems that you already have that issue if you're going to have Space Marines (1k characters) mix with IG.

Honestly, I thought you were aiming for campaigns centered around the power (and point value) of Space Marines since the bulk of the text is devoted to them currently.
naloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.