Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 201 to 240 of 240
  1. #201
    Destroyer of Worlds Lanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    27,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigbucky View Post
    Are Circle Warlocks supposed to get Craft (wold) as a skill? I only see that Blackclads have it. Is it really intended that Warlocks can't heal their wolds?
    While I don't agree with how restrictive it is for how (generally) weak wolds are, the intention seems to be that you would be a blackclad warlock to use wolds.
    "If at first you don't succeed, label it version 1.0."


  2. #202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigbucky View Post
    Are Circle Warlocks supposed to get Craft (wold) as a skill? I only see that Blackclads have it. Is it really intended that Warlocks can't heal their wolds?
    Craft (any) can be taken by several careers, including such general careers as Brigand, Warrior, and Scout. Not Circle only careers, but a Circle Warlock can take the general careers and repair their own wolds.

  3. #203
    Destroyer of Worlds Morgan Coalburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany
    Posts
    2,899

    Default

    Another issue: The Cygnaran Sentinel warjack's chain gun is supposed to fire 1d3 shots in burst fire in Kings, Nations, Gods. In the tabletop game, it fires 1d6 shots. Now, considering that the Sentinel's chain gun is weaker than a mini-slugger (also in Kings, Nations, Gods), I think it doesn't quite make sense that it is so sub-par overall, and I suspect it might be a copy-and-past error from weapons like the mini-slugger or the Metal Storm chain gun (also in Kings, Nations, Gods). Some clarification on this would be much appreciated.
    Last edited by Morgan Coalburn; 05-03-2016 at 04:48 PM.
    “They say necessity is the mother of invention. Well, by that account I should probably consider myself invention's crazy uncle who is never invited to family dos...”

  4. #204
    Destroyer of Worlds Lanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    27,528

    Default

    Can't the sentinel buy additional attacks?
    "If at first you don't succeed, label it version 1.0."


  5. #205
    Destroyer of Worlds Morgan Coalburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany
    Posts
    2,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanz View Post
    Can't the sentinel buy additional attacks?
    No, it can't. The rules for the chain gun say it can only be fired once per round, though it may be fired using the Burst Fire rules.
    “They say necessity is the mother of invention. Well, by that account I should probably consider myself invention's crazy uncle who is never invited to family dos...”

  6. #206
    Warrior downsideup16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wrb41977 View Post
    Just noticed a small difference between Full Metal Fantasy and Unleashed. Acrobatics in the former requires AGL 6. In the latter the requirement is PRW 6. Intentional or typo?
    Noticed the same thing. Can we get a clarification if this is intended or a typo?

    Edit: Also there are two very different versions of Relentless Advance. First one is from KNG page 362 that gives a speed bonus when someone else of your faith gets hurt and the other is from Unleashed page 164 that gives a speed bonus when the character takes damage. I would think one needs to get renamed.

    Edit 2: Battle Rage is a 3 cost spell in KNG. In Unleashed it's a 2 cost but is listed as a 3 cost in the spell lists. The newest errata indicates the spell list should be corrected to have it at 2 cost but it doesn't address the cost of the spell in KNG.

    Edit 3: There is also two versions of snow-wreathed. One added in NQ55 for the greylord outrider career and a different version in Unleashed.

    Edit 4: On the Warlock, Circle career page of unleashed it says one of the warlock abilities is Field Marshal: Magical Weapon but there is no such ability.
    Last edited by downsideup16; 05-05-2016 at 04:10 PM.

  7. #207
    Conqueror Sargide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Genova (Italy)
    Posts
    101

    Default

    For the Developers: Does Counter-charge work as the wargame?
    If you have two-weapon fighting/flying fist/dual fighter (These abilities do not specify in the description that they work only during your turn or activation) is it possible to counter-charge and make two, three attacks?
    I already opened a thread, but I didn't find a satisfying answer.
    Since I'm having this doubt reading from Unleashed rulebook I would like to know if there is an answer in the book or if it is something that need correction.

    Skilled: Unleashed p.111
    A Skilled character gains an additional attack during his Activation Phase if he chooses to attack that turn.
    Berserk: Skorne Empire [nihilator career] (missing) I took this description from Kings, Nations, and Gods p.182
    When this character incapacitates or destroys one or more other characters with a melee attack during his turn, immediately after the attack is resolved he must make one additional melee attack against another character in his melee range.
    Cleave: Unleashed p.157
    When this character incapacitates one or more enemies with a melee attack made with a great weapon during his turn, the attacking character can make one additional melee attack immediately after the attack is resolved. A character can gain only one additional attack from Cleave each turn.
    Skilled, Berserk and Cleave explicitly state that you can only use the benefit during your turn/activation phase. So, if you counter-charge you get only one attack.


    Here's the problem:
    Dual Fighter Unleashed p.159
    The character can fight with a great weapon in each hand. The character gains an additional attack for the second weapon. He suffers –2 on attack rolls with the second weapon during this attack.
    Flying Fist: Skorne Empire p.64
    While fighting unarmed or with a weapon in only one hand, this character gains an additional punch unarmed melee attack with his other hand.
    Two-Weapon Fighting: Unleashed p.168
    While fighting with a one-handed weapon, thrown weapon, or pistol in each hand, this character gains an additional attack for the second weapon. He suffers –2 on attack rolls with the second weapon while doing so.
    According to how it is written, In these description nothing states that this happen only on your turn.


    Feat: Counter-Charge Unleashed p.111
    When an enemy advances and ends its movement within thirty-six feet (6 ̋) of this character and in his line of sight, this character can immediately spend 1 feat point to charge the enemy. This character cannot make a counter charge while engaged.
    In this case there isn't something specific. It is just a charge that happen outside your normal turn.
    So, if we look Unleashed p.204
    Charge:
    [...]A character who ends his charge movement with his charge target in his melee range has made a successful charge. His first attack after charging must be against his charge target.[...]
    The book talks about the "first attack", there isn't written anywhere that a charge gives you only one attack, what you can read is
    [...]If the character charged at least 3 ̋, his first attack was made with a melee weapon, and the attack hits, the damage roll is boosted. [...]
    So... I still can't find a reason that prevents a character from counter-charging, makes the first boosted charge attack and then use two-weapon fighting/flying fist/dual fighting for an extra standard attack.

  8. #208
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    142

    Default

    The Conjoined Croak spell list has Occultation listed as cost 3 when the errata has confirmed it being cost 2.

    The list of Dhunian Races able to take Dhunian Paragon does not include Pygs or Trollkin. Is this intentional?

  9. #209
    Destroyer of Worlds Doktor Grym's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Starkweather-Moore Supply Base Bravo, Antarctica
    Posts
    1,653

    Default

    With the Ogryn in IK:U WILD ADVENTURE getting a few mods, should the one in IKRPG be changed to match?
    Welcome to the Thornwood Bistro, where the weak are killed and eaten; perhaps you'll have em' flame broiled and (un)dead or Blindwater marinated; spicy & chewy. I'd suggest Thornfall smoked & falling off the bone tender. You're going with bloody raw and still screaming. Excellent choice Mr. Ca... AaaHhhhh!

  10. #210
    Destroyer of Worlds Lanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    27,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor Grym View Post
    With the Ogryn in IK:U WILD ADVENTURE getting a few mods, should the one in IKRPG be changed to match?
    depends entirely what they get, though if Nyss are any indicator, they should be better.
    "If at first you don't succeed, label it version 1.0."


  11. #211
    Destroyer of Worlds Doktor Grym's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Starkweather-Moore Supply Base Bravo, Antarctica
    Posts
    1,653

    Default

    Lanz,

    Sorta what I felt too.

    KSW
    Welcome to the Thornwood Bistro, where the weak are killed and eaten; perhaps you'll have em' flame broiled and (un)dead or Blindwater marinated; spicy & chewy. I'd suggest Thornfall smoked & falling off the bone tender. You're going with bloody raw and still screaming. Excellent choice Mr. Ca... AaaHhhhh!

  12. #212
    Combatant
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quick question. So if something has no back arc, it moves away from an enemy model, gets free struck with a +2 ( which is what you get for back striking, I guess its to show the unit showing its back to the enemy) to hit. Now the model in question is a argus, so it gets free stuck with a +2 to hit....

    Even though it has no back arc to show to the enemy. So my question is what is the reasoning? IT has no back arc.... So is this just an over sight or is there another reason?

  13. #213
    Destroyer of Worlds malachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The realm of lies
    Posts
    2,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulric View Post
    Quick question. So if something has no back arc, it moves away from an enemy model, gets free struck with a +2 ( which is what you get for back striking, I guess its to show the unit showing its back to the enemy) to hit. Now the model in question is a argus, so it gets free stuck with a +2 to hit....

    Even though it has no back arc to show to the enemy. So my question is what is the reasoning? IT has no back arc.... So is this just an over sight or is there another reason?
    You only get back strike bonuses during your turn. You get a completely separate free strike bonus when making a free strike (+2 to hit and boosted damage).
    Think of it as the fact that when you move you are letting your guard down, even if you can see everywhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lamoron View Post
    Sheesh guys, LIVING model request or no pettings for you! Bad Cryx, BAD!

  14. #214
    Combatant
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by malachi View Post
    You only get back strike bonuses during your turn. You get a completely separate free strike bonus when making a free strike (+2 to hit and boosted damage).
    Think of it as the fact that when you move you are letting your guard down, even if you can see everywhere.
    This makes no sense, for several reasons, first off in a fight, if you can see behind you, because you can see everywhere as you put it, you don't let down your guard. The leting down your guard applies if you turn your back and run, but if your not ' turning your back' as you have 360 vision, then how are you letting down your guard?

    If your just doing it for Balance reasons, thats fine, state it. Parry gives you freedom of such attacks, but 360 degree vision should net you just a free enemy attack, without the +2 or the boosted attack, Due to the fact that there is no 'letting down your guard'.

    Yes you still get attacked, but you see it coming as you have the vision on target...

  15. #215
    Destroyer of Worlds Stormpuppy_Infantry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9,910

    Default

    Well, you suffer the free strike just because you are about to out of the melee range and he will prevent to move out from his area... not because you have exposed your back. All characters without ability to cannot be targeted by a free strike are able to trigger it while its opponent is not completely within the moving character's back arc as well. Having no back arc is not important at all.
    You create your own destiny, and your lot in life is not fixed at birth.
    Truth is truth, regardless how bitter it is.
    Stormblade Infantry, fragile but versatile infantry.
    Clockwork Oracle, Warmachine&Hordes probability calculator for Android.
    RIP, Haley1 and Black 13th. You are my heroes in the dark times.

  16. #216
    Destroyer of Worlds Lanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    27,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulric View Post
    Quick question. So if something has no back arc, it moves away from an enemy model, gets free struck with a +2 ( which is what you get for back striking, I guess its to show the unit showing its back to the enemy) to hit. Now the model in question is a argus, so it gets free stuck with a +2 to hit....

    Even though it has no back arc to show to the enemy. So my question is what is the reasoning? IT has no back arc.... So is this just an over sight or is there another reason?
    Mechanically, yes, it still takes the +2 to hit. This is because free strike simply isn't a backstrike period. Generally speaking, it's hard to disengage safely because giving ground opens you up to be attacked, and turning your back leaves you mostly defenseless, whether you can see backwards or not, so even in terms of narrative, I would still grant the +2 to hit against something with circular vision, because there's more going on there than just being able to see your attacker.
    "If at first you don't succeed, label it version 1.0."


  17. #217
    Destroyer of Worlds malachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The realm of lies
    Posts
    2,587

    Default

    In addition to what Stormpuppy and Lanz have said, also remember that free strikes boost the damage roll, while backstrikes do not. A character with Backstab gets an additional die on backstrike damage rolls, which makes them as good at backstrikes as at free strikes. For characters without the Backstab ability, they are more dangerous with a free strike than a backstrike. That is another thing to show that the game doesn't care so much about free strikes getting the benefit for hitting someone in the back as they do about the fact that free strikes are taken when the moving character is more vulnerable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lamoron View Post
    Sheesh guys, LIVING model request or no pettings for you! Bad Cryx, BAD!

  18. #218
    Combatant
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    7

    Default

    My argument was for something has no back arc, some who can see behind him, someone who when attacked by an opponent(during the opponents activation) in the back gives no benefit to his opponent as far as in how easy or hard they hit. So When the same character moves away from the opponent( now on the characters activation), seems now to be stuck stupid and gives his opponent a bonus to hit and damage. This makes no sense at all.... none.

    Now I agree to the fact that they should get an attack when I move out of engagement range. My argument is that it should be a free normal attack without benefits due to the fact that the attack is not on the back arc of a model.

    /rant
    I forget, I can't use real world logic, I give up the point. Don't care, because it is obvious to me that some people here don't realise that giving ground in a fight to re-position is not the same as turning ones back and ask to be stabbed. I guess I will have to just play stupid when rules make no sense at all when it comes to close combat.

    We all know that moving back in a fight makes you easier to hit, not to mention that if I can see an attack coming I am going to stand there and ask to be hit when increasing distance to my target. Its ok, I forget that seeing my opponent even when I turn my back means that I lower my defensive stance or let my guard down. I guess if I was a warrior or a creature who was born and able to see around me without problems at all times would be struck stupid when moving away from an opponent, making me easier to hit for no reason then for a 'narrative'.
    /end rant

    Once again I find your reasoning flawed but that is ok... its just a game.
    Last edited by Ulric; 05-20-2016 at 05:43 AM. Reason: added a point of agreement.

  19. #219
    Destroyer of Worlds The Captain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kouvola, Finland
    Posts
    5,888

    Default

    Ulric, I'm sure people understand your point, they just disagree with it because the game rules currently disagree with you. You may want to tone down some of that hostility - just because the game rules say something you don't like, and some people prefer to follow those rules, doesn't make them mentally deficient. Perhaps the game designers didn't want to give too many advantages to characters with Circular vision and it was a game balance decision to still leave them vulnerable to free strikes. Or maybe they think that just because you can see behind you, your limbs still don't bend in every way, so defending yourself against attacks from behind you is still going to be harder because it's going to be bloody difficult to parry that attack, no matter how well you see it coming.


    IKRPG combat rules are not supposed to simulate realistic fighting. It's designed to give a dynamic, fast and cinematic feeling of action. Sometimes, realism has to give way. That said, it's a role-playing game. If a rule doesn't make sense to you or your group - change the rule. Make a house rule saying that free strikes get no bonuses against characters with Circular vision. Problem solved without the need to insult people who don't play by your house rule. Your idea isn't bad at all - only your tone is.
    It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment. -Sherlock Holmes
    (Doyle, A. C. 1887: A Study in Scarlet)

  20. #220
    Combatant
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    7

    Default

    At no time did I insult or call some retarded or stupid. By saying that "obvious to me that some people here don't realize that giving ground in a fight to re-position is not the same as turning ones back and ask to be stabbed.", I am saying that some people may have never been in a fight before, and no I am not talking about a school yard brawl. Any time I referenced to someone being Stupid it was towards myself only, as Once again I realize that some people may not have the real world experiences to back up what I am speaking about. If someone interprets it as me calling them stupid, they are reading between lines that do not exist, as that was not what I was saying about them. When I said I find your reasoning flawed, I am not calling you stupid nor am I implying such. Otherwise I would come out and call you Retarded, ****ing stupid, etc... I understood where you came from in the rules, but I was arguing for the spirit of the rules and how things worked should infer something different.

    I also was talking about in the setting the characters have to be struck stupid suddenly by an external force to act differently then they were a second ago and was done in sarcasm.

    If my tone comes across as Harsh, well the interwebz does not allow me to have you recieve the tone of how I am typing or speaking it. My Rant was done with Sarcasm and venting at the non-logical nature of the rule. As stated its a game, its not supposed to be perfect, nor can it. I would like to to be, but that is an unrealistic expectation. So when I run the game, as it normally is when a gm finds something irritating, I will most likely do it differently.

    Also if they did it for Game balance fine, but it just seemed differently to me.

    Addendum: If you felt insulted, as stated that was not my intent. I apologize for any misunderstandings.
    Last edited by Ulric; 05-20-2016 at 06:47 AM. Reason: addendum

  21. #221
    Destroyer of Worlds Stormpuppy_Infantry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9,910

    Default

    Well, you may walk backward or sideways while close with your enemy in the real worlds, but it doesn't prevent your enemy to stop you from fleeing. Though IKRPG rules said that you can only advance direct toward, it doesn't means that your character cannot go backwards in his reality either....
    You create your own destiny, and your lot in life is not fixed at birth.
    Truth is truth, regardless how bitter it is.
    Stormblade Infantry, fragile but versatile infantry.
    Clockwork Oracle, Warmachine&Hordes probability calculator for Android.
    RIP, Haley1 and Black 13th. You are my heroes in the dark times.

  22. #222
    Destroyer of Worlds Lanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    27,528

    Default

    Ulric, remember that combat is all going on at the same time and is only split into turns so things can be tracked and broken down. When you're disengaging from a fight you're doing more than just backing up a few steps because if that was all you did, your opponent could keep pace with you. You suffer a free strike because you drop your defenses to try and actually escape your opponent, which is going to leave you vulnerable no matter where you can see.

    Combat isn't literally just standing there and exchanging hits. The rules abstract the complexity of it. YOU have drawn the conclusion that free strikes and back strikes are somehow related. They're not. That's just your leap of logic and nothing else. You find these answers inadequate to your premise, because your premise is wrong.
    Last edited by Lanz; 05-20-2016 at 03:49 PM.
    "If at first you don't succeed, label it version 1.0."


  23. #223
    Annihilator drstubbsberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Lincoln, UK
    Posts
    894

    Default

    Also you can make a tactical withdrawal form a fight without taking a Free Strike - either by having the Parry ability, or using a Feat Point to Parry. Think of that as the difference of someone knowing how to safely disengage without opening their guard vs a less-skilled combatant making some small error as they pull back and leaving themselves open.

    Sometimes the rules may seem like they're getting in the way of your mental image, but often it's simply a case of re-framing the rules abstraction into a scenario that makes sense - e.g. "that snake-eyes attack roll wasn't my pistol-expert missing an easy target, the cartridge was badly manufactured and didn't go off," or "the reason that character got Concussed when I stabbed him is because he leapt aside and cracked his head on something."

  24. #224
    Combatant
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    7

    Default

    My premise is wrong....

    ::Shrug::

    Already came to my conclusion awhile ago. That is yes they are related, back strikes and free strikes, however the raw relfects a narrow interpretation of how it works. I think that in spirit they are related and will go with that. Once again I feel your wrong, but thats ok, not going to loose hair or sleep over it.

    I agree to disagree with your view point on this and we can move on to more pertinent Questions that others may ask. No reason to beat a dead horse when it wont effect our point of views. Or maybe I am being a stubborn mule on the topic.... Eh.... ::shrug::

  25. #225
    Destroyer of Worlds Doktor Grym's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Starkweather-Moore Supply Base Bravo, Antarctica
    Posts
    1,653

    Default

    Ulric,

    Because it is an RPG, don't feel constrained by the system rules either, most people in real life couldn't protect themselves from multiple attackers unless trained.

    Also to everyone, folks can always agree to disagree, no-harm, no-foul especially because it is an RPG. I believe in a recent Primecast episode, Matt even suggested, that if some rule was going to remove action in a scene, bend it. The sample he used was in relation to charging, with an insight to even allowing premeasuring or if it's close, just allowing for say a charger to reach their charge target.

    As an RPG allowing both sides of the table a little flexibility will hopefully allow for more drama and excitement during action scenes.

    My GM for example allowed my Thamarite Advocate/Ordic Warcaster to exist, even though the raw might not allow it, I also was able to use a Bond slot with my Imbued Weapon. Again not allowed by RAW, but with the addition of the IK:Unleashed and Warlocks being able to do the same.

    KSW
    Welcome to the Thornwood Bistro, where the weak are killed and eaten; perhaps you'll have em' flame broiled and (un)dead or Blindwater marinated; spicy & chewy. I'd suggest Thornfall smoked & falling off the bone tender. You're going with bloody raw and still screaming. Excellent choice Mr. Ca... AaaHhhhh!

  26. #226
    Destroyer of Worlds odinsgrandson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Provo, Utah
    Posts
    3,004

    Default

    No Quarter #62 has a spell called Storm Howler in the Blighted Sorcerer's spell list, but said spell is not to be found (it is not in any of the Chasing the Dragon articles, nor is it in the core books).

  27. #227

    Default

    I just got my hand on the Unleashed Wild Adventures book and I noticed that the Gobbers can use two-handed weapons like rifles but with a penalty, I'm guessing that goes for the Iron Kingdom Corebook Gobbers to, but there doesn't seem to be a errata that says that the Iron Kingdom Corebook Gobbers can use two-handed weapons but with a penalty, is that a mistake or how would this go.?
    Viva le Gobbers!!

    "... "-Unknown Kovnik

    ".... "-Fiona the Black


  28. #228
    Annihilator Macavity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Red Tzar View Post
    I just got my hand on the Unleashed Wild Adventures book and I noticed that the Gobbers can use two-handed weapons like rifles but with a penalty, I'm guessing that goes for the Iron Kingdom Corebook Gobbers to, but there doesn't seem to be a errata that says that the Iron Kingdom Corebook Gobbers can use two-handed weapons but with a penalty, is that a mistake or how would this go.?
    Wild Adventure Gobber rules are supposed to reflect wild, Unleashed gobbers living outside of the cushy city, but you could apply to an IK gobber with GM approval.
    R.I.P. Greedo1379 (1980-2006)...We'll miss you.

  29. #229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macavity View Post
    Wild Adventure Gobber rules are supposed to reflect wild, Unleashed gobbers living outside of the cushy city, but you could apply to an IK gobber with GM approval.
    I would say a Civilized gobbers would use two-handed weapons just as often, like big wrenches, rifles and the likes.
    Viva le Gobbers!!

    "... "-Unknown Kovnik

    ".... "-Fiona the Black


  30. #230
    Destroyer of Worlds Lanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    27,528

    Default

    Generally I see the newer races as 'updated' versions of their predecessors where appropriate. The unleashed Ogrun, Nyss and Gobbers are all strictly superior to their IK counterparts, and were all races that lagged a bit behind to begin with, so I'm fine with giving them the unleashed advantages all the time. I don't think PP has commented on whether this is the intention, however.
    "If at first you don't succeed, label it version 1.0."


  31. #231

    Default

    does anybody have a clarification on how things like Mechanika sword-cannon work, can you even do that?
    If you use only the runes that are for both melee and ranged weapons would they work for both combat actions?

  32. #232
    Destroyer of Worlds Lanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    27,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdlucree View Post
    does anybody have a clarification on how things like Mechanika sword-cannon work, can you even do that?
    If you use only the runes that are for both melee and ranged weapons would they work for both combat actions?
    RAW they are ranged weapons that can make melee attacks. So they would use ranged mechanika runes.

    Personally, as a GM, I would allow a mechanika sword cannon to use neutral runes like bond and accuracy, and apply it to both ranged and melee attacks.
    "If at first you don't succeed, label it version 1.0."


  33. #233

    Default

    how could an iron head gain an attack to use its artillery mount if he also has two other weapons?
    i just cant see a reason for the artillery mount except two have three weapons and i can see several feats that let you take extra melee atacks but not any except two-fister for ranged? i would really like two go three gun

  34. #234
    Destroyer of Worlds Lanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    27,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdlucree View Post
    how could an iron head gain an attack to use its artillery mount if he also has two other weapons?
    i just cant see a reason for the artillery mount except two have three weapons and i can see several feats that let you take extra melee atacks but not any except two-fister for ranged? i would really like two go three gun
    The obvious reason is to gain access to weapons you can't otherwise use. The Ironhead has no specific abilities to allow for multiple attacks with 'jack weapons, but any 'jack weapon that can allow for multiple shots in a turn can still benefit from rules that grant multiple attacks, like the skilled benefit.
    "If at first you don't succeed, label it version 1.0."


  35. #235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanz View Post
    The obvious reason is to gain access to weapons you can't otherwise use. The Ironhead has no specific abilities to allow for multiple attacks with 'jack weapons, but any 'jack weapon that can allow for multiple shots in a turn can still benefit from rules that grant multiple attacks, like the skilled benefit.
    so if i was skilled icould use two fister to get an off hand attack and then take my extra attack with iether the axe or my artillery mount cool i didn't see that

  36. #236
    Destroyer of Worlds Doktor Grym's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Starkweather-Moore Supply Base Bravo, Antarctica
    Posts
    1,653

    Default

    Or if you were a Warcaster who had a Bond plate within the weapon mount Gun. Within the system there are a number of ways to gain extra attacks, sometimes you just have to be creative about it.

    If I recall correctly a Skilled archetype mixed with a few different careers can get 5 attacks pretty easily, not to mention using the feat "Two-fister" which I would allow an Iron Head to fire an extra shot with their mounted weapon. Not RAW, but it is costing a feat point.

    KSW
    Welcome to the Thornwood Bistro, where the weak are killed and eaten; perhaps you'll have em' flame broiled and (un)dead or Blindwater marinated; spicy & chewy. I'd suggest Thornfall smoked & falling off the bone tender. You're going with bloody raw and still screaming. Excellent choice Mr. Ca... AaaHhhhh!

  37. #237

    Default

    Concerning the Jack article in NQ, wasn't it said that those rules were optinal and you could use them or not?
    Viva le Gobbers!!

    "... "-Unknown Kovnik

    ".... "-Fiona the Black


  38. #238
    Destroyer of Worlds Lanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    27,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Red Tzar View Post
    Concerning the Jack article in NQ, wasn't it said that those rules were optinal and you could use them or not?
    If you're referring to Hull, yes it's optional.
    "If at first you don't succeed, label it version 1.0."


  39. #239
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    288

    Default

    Question for the devs regarding am inconsistency resulting from MKIII.

    The bletcher in the efaarit article (NQ#61) is listet as SPD 8, like the Efaarit Scouts in MKII. In MKIII these guys got upped to SPD 9, so would you recommend adjusting this in the rpg, too? Given all other mounts have corresponding SPD values to their tabletop incarnations.

  40. #240
    Destroyer of Worlds odinsgrandson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Provo, Utah
    Posts
    3,004

    Default

    The Exemplar career has a cool Chain Attack: Smite that requires Hand Weapon 3, and requires the Exemplar to be using two Magical Hand Weapons.

    However, all of the weaponry available to him are all Great Weapons. They even added in the Divine Might ability so that he can duel wield Relic Blades, but these cannot trigger the Chain Attack as written, because it requires two hits with hand weapons (sword and shield would also not trigger chain attack smite).

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •