Inquisitor Looking to dust off some old 54mm. - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Drill Sergeant Lord Borak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the Loft
    Age
    11
    Posts
    10,215
    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    2052 (x8)

    Looking to dust off some old 54mm.

    Hey guys. I know this is a bit of a dusty section to the Forum but I'll post anyway.

    I'm going through making some warbands and, when it came to pointing this up. I got a tad confused. So, just to make sure I'm doing things right....

    Armour is done 1pt per point of armour per location. So, in regards to shields. Shields cover 3 locations so does that mean a normal shield that's AV4 costs 12points? If it's a storm shield (rare) that's AV4 it costs 17pts? Correct?

    Right, onto ammunition. 'Special ammo'. Normal Ammo costs 50% of the weapon cost. Is special Ammo worked out 50% of weapon cost plus to cost if it's rare? So a Bolt pistol (5pts) with 1 reload (2.5pts) and 1 reload of special ammo (7.5pts)............. Is that right?


    I have tried to sign up to the =][= Conclave but my account is still awaiting conformation......... it's been 2 weeks. I don't think it's gonna happen.


  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Benevolent Dictator CaptainSarathai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    inside your head
    Posts
    9,222
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    1480 (x8)

    Yeah, unfortunately I think the Enclave guys are in a similar boat to us here at LO, as far as the activity of their management is concerned. I wouldn't hold my breath on getting accepted into that forum. They could have at least made it an open-invite once they decided to step off. It's not like every forum dissolves into B&C levels of flaming and idiocy as soon as you turn your back - at least, not with good mods like us around, right

    As for your pricing - yep, that's typically how we ran it in my group when we used the Reckoner. The problem is that the Ready Reckoner is utter garbage, and a lot of people have known that for a long time (they even tell you in the books, really).

    My group ended up using this method, from Cathax
    Ready Reckoner - Carthax Wiki
    It also has a pretty good explanation of why not to use the Reckoner.

    In the end, you can't play Inq the same way that you play Fantasy or 40k. I hate when people say that Fantasy/40k is a "narrative game", because I have played Inquisitor, and I know what a narrative game is. Inquisitor is best with 3 people - two players and GM. You play it like you'd play 'Dungeons and Dragons' - the GM preps the game before hand, gets everything set up, and imposes his will upon the players. Player shows up with a Space Marine? He can't. Make him change it, or else make sure that the Marine dies bloody at some point during the mission.

    Usually our games of Inquisitor were ongoing, round-robin affairs with the role of GM rotating each week. At any time, players could take a vote on whether or not a player was overpowered or deserved a bit of a boost. This was back in High School (you guys call it Secondary School?) so we had tons of time to kill and would "nerd out" around the lunch table talking about our warbands and characters, so we usually had a good idea of the ongoing story.

    The last few times that I've run Inquisitor, it's been for people who were less familiar with the rules. I asked them to tell me about their warband - what their Inquisitor was like, how they met each member of the team, how the usually carried out missions, and describe a shortcoming for each, etc. Then I, as the GM wrote their Warbands. I didn't care about the Reckoner, because I could balance each team in my head. The only thing I'd limit right out of the gates were usually the weapons and armor, and number of members in the team (keep it down to about 3-4, or the games slog). That way, players could build, convert, and paint whatever they wanted, and then I would hand them the character sheet for their guys. It usually wasn't a problem for anyone, as I'd do my best to get the feel of a character, without piling on a ton of extra stuff that they didn't really need.
    Pts Values for AoS here!

    Nippon Armybook: Isuu, Scribd, and free at Google Docs

  4. #3
    Drill Sergeant Lord Borak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the Loft
    Age
    11
    Posts
    10,215
    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    2052 (x8)

    Ugh, that moment when you type out a long reply and then your internet connection dies and you lose it. Here we go again!!

    Thanks for the link, I'm going to take the majority of that on board. What I was thinking was for each person/player to make one character and for them to make a warband. This makes it easier for each person to get into the game. A lot of people have an Inquisitor model kicking around and if not they can borrow one of mine (or a mates). The other bonus for me is that I can give the 'leader' a Mission and then he can decide how he wants his Warband to go about doing it. However I can give each player a 'secondary mission' while we're at it and make for some fun infighting and mistrust amongst the warband.

    As for 'limitations' the Link provided me with some good pointers and I think I'll sit down with each person and go over their character with them. Trimming down the fat and limiting their wargear etc. It's a bit harder if they've just armed the model with what it has but, hey-hum. More equipment = Less skills/stats I reckon.


    The main problem I'm going to have is that I'm not you. I'm a gamer not a GM. I have ideas for missions but no real idea where I'd want to take the campaign.


    LAstly, I managed to get onto the =][= conclave. I emailed the main honcho and he activated my account straight away. He thought I was a BOT! The indignity! I can see his point though, it's not like they're expecting new gamers.

  5. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  6. #4
    Benevolent Dictator CaptainSarathai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    inside your head
    Posts
    9,222
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    1480 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Borak View Post
    The main problem I'm going to have is that I'm not you. I'm a gamer not a GM. I have ideas for missions but no real idea where I'd want to take the campaign.
    Meh. If you're GMing an individual game/mission, it's not too hard at all - the players will usually fill in the rest. It's not quite D&D, the whole group should work together to tell the story. D&D as this expectation that the GM is working against the protagonist players - he's the monsters and bad guys that the players work together to defeat. Without antagonists, there is no story - therefore, as it's the GM's job to provide the antagonists, it's also his job to provide the story. This is why so many D&D groups fail, because either the DM is only worried about defeating the players, or the players put all of the narrative responsibility onto the poor DM.

    In Inquisitor, the players are both the protagonists, and the antagonists. The GM's job is only to adjudicate. Rather than the players living inside the GM's story, the players have equal share in telling the story. The separation for Inquisitor players should be that the Warband isn't their Warband, the Inquisitor is not them, and they are not characters. Tim is not "Inquisitor Horst," Inquisitor Horst is the Inquisitor Horst, no matter which player is handling his char-sheet.

    Inquisitor is about all three parties coming together and creating a story together. They pose a situation, lay out the scenario, and then play the two sides while the GM "referees." Yes, the GM does, ultimately, have the lion's share of the creative license, but it's not as one-sided as D&D. His primary job is just to keep things balanced - iron out any spikes in good or bad luck between the players, and help make sure the players stay in character (a Puritan Inquisitor is not going to "just let the Daemon go" simply because he's out of ammo for his guns, and got shot in the arm a few turns back). He also get final say in all the rules disputes, makes up any required house rules on the fly (how the hell do you hurl a Ratling across a chasm into a horde of Plague-Zombies?), handles any neutral forces or unexpected arrivals, and implements any crazy modifiers that he sees fit (and suddenly: Warp-Dust Storms! etc) to give the game it's memorable moments.

    This is a lot of the reason that the role of GM swapped around in our group. We had 4 players, and 4 warbands. They all came into friction at some point or other - sometimes 2:1, other times a free-for-all between 3 teams, or just 1:1 matches - whatever suited the story. If the story was headed towards my Warband clashing with another person's, then we'd get someone to GM the scenario for us. The next week, I might be GMing the aftermath, when two Warbands are squabbling over the loot taken from my own now-dead Inquisitor.

    As an example of how it usually works, say you build your two warbands:

    ---
    Rogue Inquisitor Faestian - was once a loyal, Thorian Inquisitor. While traveling the far reaches of the Eastern Fringe, he came across the tech-magos Tacitus, guarding what the Magos believed to be the site where the Void Dragon would awaken. Over a long discourse, Inquisitor Faestian became convinced that contrary to the current schism between the Mechanicus Cult of Mars, and the Imperial Cult of Terra, the Emperor and Omnissiah were one in the same. The stories of the rising Void Dragon, therefore, coincided with the Thorian belief of a reborn-Emperor. Faestian has since traveled with Magos Tacitus, converting followers to his cause.

    This unlikely duo is joined by a pair of gunmen known as 'The Brothers Gryfd' [wanted in 4 of the 5 Segmentum], and a regressed Combat [specification: close assault] Servitor assumed to have been previously in the employ of Magos Tacitus.

    Inquisitor Lothar - has been dispatched by the remaining, loyal believers of the Thorian doctrine, to hunt down and exterminate the rogue Faestian before his heresy causes irreparable damage to Thorian credibility and reputation. Lothar was chosen for his grim, unwavering loyalty to the values of the Thorians. Of particular importance to Lothar are the stories of the Thorians' founder - Sebastian Thor - and his victory over the corrupt High Lord of Terra, Goge Vandire. This righteous zeal, even when dealing with members within the Imperial Cult, means that Lothar has been called upon several times to hunt down his fellow Inquisitors, and in every instance, he has carried out his orders with a ruthless, almost mechanical, efficiency.
    Along with a well equipped kill-team, Lothar has set out for the Eastern Fringe, with a bearing towards the last reported sighting of Faestius and his band of rabble-rousers and scum.
    ---

    So there you have your characters set. Faestian believes that he is forwarding the agenda of the Thorian cult, and pitted against him is a pragmatic "traditionalist" of the same cult, Inquisitor Lothar. It is clear that Lothar will not be swayed from his task, and will hunt Faestian to the far corners of the galaxy, to see his vengeance carried out. Lothar is like a T1000 Terminator - he's unstoppable, and almost a mindless killing machine full of righteous fervor.

    Your first encounter therefore would probably be their first meeting. Get the players together and think about how the story would play out - what would Faestian and Lothar be doing? Likely, Faestian has no idea that Lothar is coming for him, while Lothar probably is not planning to ask questions and probably doesn't even care about collateral damage, as long as he can return to his masters with proof of Faestian's demise.

    Faestian might be preaching in a crowded town center, spreading word of the reborn Emperor to the masses on some dusty outpost-world. Then, in comes Lothar and his hit-squad, guns blazing. Lothar's team probably gets the first turn, and you might even have a bunch of civilians caught in the crossfire, controlled by the GM. Where are the Brothers Gryfd? Are they guarding a perimeter, or are they maybe hidden somewhere amongst the civilians, to be activated on a later turn? Are there Arbiters present to prevent a riot? If so, do they see Faestian as a threat? Do the Arbiters know of Lothar's arrival? If not, will they return fire if/when he starts shooting at Faestian, or will they welcome him as a means to rid themselves of the fiery Rogue?

    Once you have the scenario figure out, then you can sit down and play it. That's where the GM becomes so important. What happens if that initial salvo is so accurate, that they blow Faestian's head clean off his shoulders? It shouldn't be game over, just because of one lucky shot. That would be pretty anticlimactic. So the GM has to improvise - maybe it looks like Faestian takes the hit and goes down, but it only causes severe damage; the kind that could be "fixed" by Magos Tacitus later on. Then the mission might shift to a rescue mission, with the two warbands racing to Faestian's wounded body, one side looking to finish him off, and the other trying to drag him to safety. Obviously, the wild crowd would seem to start really hindering the loyalist kill-team, giving Faestian a better chance of escape so that the story could carry on later.
    --

    You have a lot more options in Inquisitor that you do in Fantasy or 40k, or even in games like Necromunda and Mordheim. Those options are there so that you can create a story like the ones you'd read from Black Library. I don't mind that the balance is so out of whack in Inquisitor, because it's truly a "story game". You have the options to build your characters exactly as you imagine them to be - right down to the refractor-field codpieces. If the other GW games offered such an up-close and personal (no pun intended) view of the characters you were playing, I would be alright with calling them story games too - but I don't care about my 300 Imperial Guardsmen the way that I care about my one ex-IG Sergeant, with his stubber and his goggles and his half-lit cigar. Because "Guard Platoon 3" isn't cool, 'Sgt Harkur' definitely is though - and he's got the 'Grit' to prove it.
    Last edited by CaptainSarathai; April 13th, 2015 at 09:26.
    Pts Values for AoS here!

    Nippon Armybook: Isuu, Scribd, and free at Google Docs

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

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