Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 240
  1. #41
    Destroyer of Worlds solkan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6,111

    Default

    I think the main point is that if you want a rifle like Kara Sloan has, you're not going to buy it out of the book, and you're going to spend quite some time both finding people skilled enough to craft it for you, helping them work through the failed prototypes to get one that works, and probably get to epic level while you're at it.

    In other words, the book doesn't let you do it because it's an exception to the rules. And if you want an exception, you have to earn it.

  2. #42
    Eater of Brains
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4,033

    Default

    Hopefully this will put an end to the slew of rules question threads that have been popping up.

  3. #43
    Destroyer of Worlds Mordekiem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,349

    Default

    Errata or not you are always welcome to customize the rules to your group and campaign. You want mechanika magelocks? Magelock handcannons, etc? Then go for it!

    Otherwise this is nice, but I don't see anything earthshattering or unusual. Pretty much common sense approaches to most things. And things I don't like I will simply ignore.
    -Mordekiem

  4. #44
    Destroyer of Worlds kilbrj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,101

    Default

    But it does answer some really really fundamental questions. Like specialization! That is 'huge'.

    There's a few others I'd like to see answered, like does GW add to storm glaive blast attacks.

    But this is an excellent start. yay!
    Of Gods and Lions: Joseph Lachance,,The Dispatch: Kil Da Brat - CDA Troubleshooter,Be Swift, Be Cunning:Legion of Everblight:Valens Despero Blighted Nyss Swordsman/Legionairre,: Head of the Snake:Zakhar Dremyen,Rastovik of the Greylords, Seals of Fate: Sinai McGregor

  5. #45
    Conqueror Rekk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    239

    Default

    While its sadly too little, too late for my group as we've moved to a galaxy far, far away, this is still welcome to see, as is the Full Metal Fridays announcement.

    Continued content updates and refinements make it much more likely we'll come back to this game and setting some day.

  6. #46
    Annihilator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rekk View Post
    While its sadly too little, too late for my group as we've moved to a galaxy far, far away, this is still welcome to see, as is the Full Metal Fridays announcement.

    Continued content updates and refinements make it much more likely we'll come back to this game and setting some day.

    Our group never left the IK (or D20, excepting a trial session of the Core Rules), but getting the Errata addressed is essential to the players in the group coming to the new rules system. They saw too many rules issues to want to switch, and this is a great step in the right direction.

  7. #47
    Destroyer of Worlds Whimper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Regina, Canada
    Posts
    5,662

    Default

    What's the point of keeping naysayers like me around, if you can't prove us wrong every once in awhile. Thanks and appreciation to the RPG editorial staff for creating this. We waited in vain for years for an FAQ/Errata document for the first IK RPG. The new one got its first FAQ/Errata in half a year.

    Bravo!
    _______________________________________
    This is the way the world ends.

  8. #48
    Destroyer of Worlds eBadger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Seattle, Wa.
    Posts
    1,754

    Default

    Cool stuff. I think the only thing I'm not particularly happy about is the nerf/lack of love for jacks, but didn't expect to see much in this anyways.

    As for the mechanika magelock issue, I get the disappointment but I see the balance mechanism as well.

  9. #49

    Default

    odds are good they will have some goodies for jacks later on.

  10. #50
    Destroyer of Worlds Burrowowl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Scarsfell Forest
    Posts
    4,221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whimper View Post
    What's the point of keeping naysayers like me around, if you can't prove us wrong every once in awhile. Thanks and appreciation to the RPG editorial staff for creating this. We waited in vain for years for an FAQ/Errata document for the first IK RPG. The new one got its first FAQ/Errata in half a year.

    Bravo!
    Lies! We got Monsternomicon errata.

    Nitpicking aside, I agree it's great this got out.
    John Fitzgerald
    http://burrowowl.net/

  11. #51
    Annihilator Slaunyeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HowlandReed View Post
    While I agree with this statement, that caveat (easily, at least) is VERY important. Remove that caveat, and I disagree utterly. PCs and NPCs (not monsters, like dragons and such, but normal humans) should be on the same level. If an NPC can attain/achieve it, so can a PC...with time and effort. Anything else is GM-wankery.
    Well, that's why I added that caveat. I mean, I agree that PCs shouldn't just be magically outclassed by the 'real' heroes of the setting. That's such a cheap trick. On the other hand, I don't really expect to play Luke Skywalker in a Star Wars game either. Most games I can think of has some kind of level that you're not really supposed to reach. Exalted being one of the more notable exceptions (where you're essentially designed to eventually kill anything cooler than you )

  12. #52
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    1,300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HowlandReed View Post
    I can agree that this is a reasonable way to keep the focus on the PCs (where I feel it should be).



    While I agree with this statement, that caveat (easily, at least) is VERY important. Remove that caveat, and I disagree utterly. PCs and NPCs (not monsters, like dragons and such, but normal humans) should be on the same level. If an NPC can attain/achieve it, so can a PC...with time and effort. Anything else is GM-wankery.
    Currently no rules even exist to play in the military - if you wanted to run a game in the military and your characters got to high levels you could easily make up special items for them. The fact is that the default setting modelled by the core rules shouldn't empower you to the extent that the characters in the wargame are, because those are higher fliers than the default setting.

    I'm sure that rules will be made to extend the power level, and to get unique items in future.
    And her beauty was all the more perfect and serene, preserved forever within that great glacier of ice.

  13. #53
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,285

    Default

    And there was much rejoicing
    Quote Originally Posted by PPS_Matt View Post
    I did design the original Man-O-War armor.
    Quote Originally Posted by PPS_Matt View Post
    I can confirm that the slits on the chest are indeed intended to toast bread.

  14. #54
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    1,300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eBadger View Post
    Cool stuff. I think the only thing I'm not particularly happy about is the nerf/lack of love for jacks, but didn't expect to see much in this anyways.

    As for the mechanika magelock issue, I get the disappointment but I see the balance mechanism as well.
    If you mean the forager no longer having a heavy jack stat line - I don't think that's a nerf. that's just an errata on a misprint. The buff to coal prices (which we already got in NQ but it's nice to have it available to all) is a much bigger buff to jacks.
    And her beauty was all the more perfect and serene, preserved forever within that great glacier of ice.

  15. #55
    Conqueror Darvanus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Posts
    161

    Default

    Please sticky this thread!
    "Players may blunder through dialog with shocking ineptitude, forget the name of the country they are in, or get confused about which side they are on, but once it comes time to roll for initiative they all turn into Sun Tzu." quote from DM of the Rings

  16. #56
    Destroyer of Worlds Karl Eller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, Australia
    Posts
    1,296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darv**** View Post
    Please sticky this thread!
    Seconded. The WM/H Errata has a sticky in the Rules forum, the IK RPG Errata needs a sticky in the IK RPG forum

    Also, your name gets censored when it's quoted

  17. #57
    Destroyer of Worlds Cloud-Gatherer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    8,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darv**** View Post
    Please sticky this thread!
    In general, the surest way to make sure nobody reads a thread is to make it a sticky, but I could see it making sense in this case.
    "Sucking at something is the first step towards being sorta good at something."

  18. #58
    I quit my job and became a publisher I guess whatever _Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    16,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloud-Gatherer View Post
    In general, the surest way to make sure nobody reads a thread is to make it a sticky, but I could see it making sense in this case.
    Bingo.

    I'm giving the thread a few days in the wild before it gets stickied.

  19. #59
    Conqueror Darvanus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Posts
    161

    Default

    True, but I did not even know there was an errata until I was reading another thread about magelocks. If it falls of the front page or heck the top 10 or 15 threads people will easily miss it.

    Anyway thanks PPS_Simon for the response and the effort to quell the nerd rage, its a tough job I am sure .

    As to my name, though unintended, the last half sort of fits as I can be kind of a butt lol.
    "Players may blunder through dialog with shocking ineptitude, forget the name of the country they are in, or get confused about which side they are on, but once it comes time to roll for initiative they all turn into Sun Tzu." quote from DM of the Rings

  20. #60
    Conqueror Banjulhu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    322

    Default

    I know that weapon specialisation without clarification from the erratta was extremely over the top but with it at best now taking away a -1 penalty from an attack does it have any real worth for a pirate or cutthroat?

  21. #61
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    1,300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Banjulhu View Post
    I know that weapon specialisation without clarification from the erratta was extremely over the top but with it at best now taking away a -1 penalty from an attack does it have any real worth for a pirate or cutthroat?
    Yes. +1 is still a big effect on the curve. It was already good at +1 the over interpretation was just ridiculous.
    And her beauty was all the more perfect and serene, preserved forever within that great glacier of ice.

  22. #62
    Conqueror Banjulhu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    322

    Default

    But being only a +1 means it is competing with +1 increase the underlying military skill, the bonus for which can also be applied to other weapons.

  23. #63
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Banjulhu View Post
    But being only a +1 means it is competing with +1 increase the underlying military skill, the bonus for which can also be applied to other weapons.
    But still an additional +1 from weapon specialization is still another +1.

  24. #64
    Annihilator Slaunyeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Banjulhu View Post
    But being only a +1 means it is competing with +1 increase the underlying military skill, the bonus for which can also be applied to other weapons.
    It does mean that specialization is a poor choice if you haven't maxed your relevant military skill, at least.

  25. #65
    Zombie Annihilator terrashand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Banjulhu View Post
    I know that weapon specialisation without clarification from the erratta was extremely over the top but with it at best now taking away a -1 penalty from an attack does it have any real worth for a pirate or cutthroat?
    All I have to say: Weapon Focus (feat)
    Captain Terrashand Sol, Cygnar CRS

    Quote Originally Posted by Citadel97501 View Post
    Yelling with thick Khadoran accent, "Khadoran parts, Cygnaran parts, all made in Llael!",
    Shakes, slams and hits the equipment
    Thick Khadoran accent, "Good now we can all go home!"

  26. #66
    Destroyer of Worlds Cloud-Gatherer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    8,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Banjulhu View Post
    But being only a +1 means it is competing with +1 increase the underlying military skill, the bonus for which can also be applied to other weapons.
    It's pretty trivial to start with [Military Skill of choice] 2, and you can't go higher than that for a long time. Specialization is still totally worthwhile.
    "Sucking at something is the first step towards being sorta good at something."

  27. #67
    Conqueror Forgarn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Banjulhu View Post
    But being only a +1 means it is competing with +1 increase the underlying military skill, the bonus for which can also be applied to other weapons.
    And it's not really a +1... I have an Ogrun that uses a halberd and has spec (halberd). With a PRW of 5 and a GW of 2 my base MAT is 7. When I use the halberd 1 handed, weapon spec eliminated the -1 attack mod to give me a 7 MAT. However, when/if I use it two handed. where the attack mod is 0, my MAT is still a 7 and not an 8. I just wish is got rid of the -2 for the Ogrun Huge Stature ability

  28. #68
    Eater of Brains
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4,033

    Default

    Well yeah, PP isn't going to errata in there "you're right guys who made that list, Specialization actually does offset -20 to an attack roll - good call, keep 'em coming".

  29. #69
    Destroyer of Worlds Beckman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    5,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slaunyeh View Post
    It does mean that specialization is a poor choice if you haven't maxed your relevant military skill, at least.
    Sort-of... It's functionally a comparison between SWORD and whatever other weapon you're using with your specialization. +1 P+S for some weapons.. in exchange for an ability slot, which COULD be a good trade. It doesn't cost you a stat-up to boost STR, which means you could use a stat-up to boost something else if you were hypothetically going to to boost STR to increase your damage output anyways.

    Also, if you're taking two classes that don't have the same military skills and end up with 1 in your military skill, you can't swap an ability out for +1 military skillpoint at character creation anyways. So either you like the functional +1 damage that Cutlass provides, or you don't. Either you like Halberd or Spear... Or you don't. Maxing your military skill is a separate choice. (I am assuming that you can swap abilities on character creation as per pg. 119)
    Last edited by Beckman; 02-25-2013 at 09:48 AM.
    Longjaw Stonehide (0xp) - Newly Incarcerated! - (Izaak Markov's Dragonslayers)
    Decklin Belgre (18xp) - Hijinks on the High Seas
    Jonas Blackburn (27xp) - Iron West Company
    Longjaw Stonehide (5xp) - Guards of the Blackwoods (Thread Inactive)
    Thomas Redcliff (4xp) - Coin is King (Thread Inactive)

  30. #70
    Conqueror Forgarn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beckman View Post
    Sort-of... It's functionally a comparison between SWORD and whatever other weapon you're using with your specialization. +1 P+S for some weapons.. in exchange for an ability slot, which COULD be a good trade. It doesn't cost you a stat-up to boost STR, which means you could use a stat-up to boost something else if you were hypothetically going to to boost STR to increase your damage output anyways.

    Also, if you're taking two classes that don't have the same military skills and end up with 1 in your military skill, you can't swap an ability out for +1 military skillpoint at character creation anyways. So either you like the functional +1 damage that Cutlass provides, or you don't. Either you like Halberd or Spear... Or you don't. Maxing your military skill is a separate choice.
    Weapon spec doesn't affect P+S or damage... it is strictly for attacks.

  31. #71
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    1,300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forgarn View Post
    Weapon spec doesn't affect P+S or damage... it is strictly for attacks.
    What he's saying is the weapons you can specialise in are usually better - in return for a penalty of -1 (which you then get rid of). No it isn't better than upping your military skill but those aren't comparable things. You need to look at what other abilities are available to you to evaluate weapon specilisation. It holds up fairly decently if you mainly (or exclusively) use the weapon in question. Maybe you'd want to pick it up 3rd or 4th (and not start with it) but it's still a decent choice.
    And her beauty was all the more perfect and serene, preserved forever within that great glacier of ice.

  32. #72
    Destroyer of Worlds Defenstrator's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Victoria /B.C. /Canada
    Posts
    13,516

    Default

    Yay! Nice stuff to have. Although I had forgotten that the Forager had less boxes. A bit depressing considering how easily non skewed jacks seem to break.

    As for the IK vs Warmachine thing, they're different games. In the IK I would convert Warmachine characters so they fit rather than just having unique super powers. You kind of have to since to do otherwise both breaks the suspension of disbelief (So he just gives everyone +5 ARM huh? Where'd he learn that, the school of pulling powers out if your a**?), and makes the players resentful their characters cannot aspire to the same thing.

    Although while you guys were settling the Mechanika Magelock debate, you couldn't confirm whether warcaster armour can take more runes on it or counts as five already?
    Last edited by Defenstrator; 02-25-2013 at 11:10 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by John of Arc View Post
    Who hates Steelheads? That's like saying "Man, screw bread. Bread can go die."
    Our Warmachine and Hordes Blog.

  33. #73
    Destroyer of Worlds Cloud-Gatherer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    8,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Defenstrator View Post
    Yay! Nice stuff to have. Although I had forgotten that the Forager had less boxes. A bit depressing considering how easily non skewed jacks seem to break.
    I dunno, the Bulldog chassis (from Urban Adventure) seems pretty hardy. Base ARM 17, slightly bigger grid than a Forager. Only MAT 3 so it'll hit even less than a Forager, but it can take more of a beating.

    Now, if you mean ALL jacks, then yeah, jacks are comparatively easier to break in IKRPG because their grids didn't scale up the way everybody else's damage capacities did, but six hull boxes on the Forager's grid are merely a drop in that particular bucket.
    "Sucking at something is the first step towards being sorta good at something."

  34. #74
    Destroyer of Worlds kilbrj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,101

    Default

    PC's feel closer to the vitality of warcaster when all is said and done, so perhaps that's why not everything scaled up. because most things are just about 15-17 in the game. that said I also like to think of the wargame as 1 point guys simply are out of the fight, not necessarily dead. Which is why in my wargame, if you don't drop them most 'sane' people are going to run if you do any serious damage to them.
    Of Gods and Lions: Joseph Lachance,,The Dispatch: Kil Da Brat - CDA Troubleshooter,Be Swift, Be Cunning:Legion of Everblight:Valens Despero Blighted Nyss Swordsman/Legionairre,: Head of the Snake:Zakhar Dremyen,Rastovik of the Greylords, Seals of Fate: Sinai McGregor

  35. #75

    Default

    Thanks for the update! Would be nice to see more questions in the FAQ part, especially whether making ranged attack in melee gets both "engaged" and "target in melee" penalties or only the first one, but this is great anyway.

  36. #76
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    1,300

    Default

    We recently had a thread that reminded me of another rules question we still need an answer on.

    Back strike bonus and back strike (clarification on what the rule means/intends).

    That's to go with;

    Clarification on the stormblade ranged attack (does it get great weapon added on?)

    Clarification that the -4 in melee penalty and the -4 shooting at a target in melee are meant to stack (so -8 to shoot a target you're in melee with), or if shooting at a target in melee is meant to be mean, a target not in melee with you (so shooting into another melee while you're in melee is -8, but shooting into your own is only -4).
    And her beauty was all the more perfect and serene, preserved forever within that great glacier of ice.

  37. #77
    Combatant
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Going back to magelock guns briefly; would a good work around be to simply allow warcasters to bond with magelock guns? They are considered magic anyway.

  38. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DSRMT View Post
    Going back to magelock guns briefly; would a good work around be to simply allow warcasters to bond with magelock guns? They are considered magic anyway.
    There's absolutely no reason to. A warcaster can spend 1 focus to boost either attack or damage rolls, and both. A gun Mage can do exactly he same thing, bu doesn't have to burn an ability to bond with the weapon first.

  39. #79
    Combatant
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Ah, fair enough. I'm still knew to the rules, so I must have missed that. My mistake

  40. #80

    Default

    PPS_Simon, could you do me a huge favor:

    Please rule on the Flying Fists v. Two Weapon Fighting debate. The trolls are starting to eat at my brain, it hurts my head.

    Basically, power-gamers are trying to say RAW is that knuckledusters both DON'T count as a weapon for the purposes of Flying Fists, and at the same time, DO count as a weapon for Two-Weapon Fighting in an obvious attempt to gain 3 attacks on a mighty pugilist.

    Please put an end to this once and for all...

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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