Hey I've recently tested a house rule i made with my team:

After playing a module, we were a bit frustrated by the fact that your skill with a weapon had no impact on how much damage you did. The only way to increase damage output was to either roll high on the damage roll itself (luck), chose the most damaging weapon available, or to chose weapons capable of autofire and even semi-auto fire as skill with weapon (BS) and situational modifiers almost directly increases damage output.

House rule: For every degree of success with a single-shot weapon, you can add one to damage (maks +3 damage).

I also allow this with melee weapons, but only when single-wielding.

What do you think? This makes the damage output of characters wielding pistols and pump shotguns (or even autoguns fired on single-shot) a bit higher, but not even close to what those who use autofire gets (especially with the inceased chance of Fury).

I've seen the rules for extra damage with accurate weapons in the errata, and will not allow those extra damage dice to stack with my rules.

In the errata checking on aim you find that accurate weapons gain 1d10 extra damage when aimed per 2 degrees of success , usual weapons are simply not precise enough to make your skill count.

Sarius said:

Yes i wrote it in the last sentence, and up to 2 more d10s is plenty of damage (almost overpowered as the acolytes were able to take down 3 Genestealers in their first adventure).

However the idea that using a pistol is not accurate enough to make skill count is silly, and that's what the house rule attempt to fix. It's like a professional marksman not being able to get good hits on his target as the shots would just randomly scatter across the circles of the target.

I'm looking here for feebback so I can more easily determine wether the house rule is:

a: overpowered compared to autofire etc,

b: overpowered compared t TB and armor

c: overpowered compared to certain creatures, talents or weapons.

Initially I had no limit on the extra damage but after some experience with lethal unarmed attacks I capped the extra damage at 3. Note that i still allow the errata rules on accurate weapons (snipers), but they don't stack with my house rule.

However the idea that using a pistol is not accurate enough to make skill count is silly, and that's what the house rule attempt to fix. It's like a professional marksman not being able to get good hits on his target as the shots would just randomly scatter across the circles of the target.

Aiming for a particular body part is generally the best that can be accomplished in a combat situation, with most combatants simply aiming for the centre of mass. And even professional marksmen would need a gun that's precise enough to make their superior skill count.

Also note that there's Mighty Shot out there for those who want some extra Oomph.

In your original post, you said that you were implementing the rule because your skill with a weapon had no impact on how much damage you did. Okay, fair enough. But I'm not sure, at least for ballistic weapons, that is necessarily a problem.

In any circumstance, a bullet that hits you in exactly the same place fired from an identical gun will damage a person an equal amount wether the person firing the gun is an expert marksman who intended to hit the exact location they did or an incompetent fool who happened to get lucky. The only difference is that an expert marksman will hit the target more often, and will be more able to hit a specific location if aiming for it, which is represented by called shots.

Melee weapons are a different matter. You are still holding the weapon when you strike, and all of the power comes from your control of the weapon, so I could see extra damage being granted in that case, though that could also could be accounted for by the addition of the strength bonus.

So, in my opinion, the opportunities for extra damage are there and, if you want to go for realism, leave the rule off. Still, I think the rule looks like a fun addition if you're just looking to blow up some heretics and to answer your questions,

a: NO

b: NO

c: NO

The Boy Named Crow said:

Called shots however deal no additional damage, and unless the target has armor elsewhere it's completely pointless to make a called shot in this game. Combat system is abstract however, dealing damage based on luck, and ignoring the fact that armor generally have weak spots that a skilled fighter can exploit through precision (either with a sword or bullet).

But yes, the idea of the rule is not so much to simulate realistic combat but rather give those who want to use single-shot weapons to actually do decent damage in combat compared to those who simply go for bursts.

Thanks for the answers, I think I'll continue to use it, and i let my NPCs use it as well. Rolling high on damage rolls still matters, buit so does hitting well in the first place (low roll on attack compared to BS or WS).

Called shots however deal no additional damage, and unless the target has armor elsewhere it's completely pointless to make a called shot in this game. Combat system is abstract however, dealing damage based on luck, and ignoring the fact that armor generally have weak spots that a skilled fighter can exploit through precision (either with a sword or bullet).

Headshots deal almost always at least one point of damage more than shots to other locations since any helmets that are not part of package solutions have less AP than the average in their category (I generally treat package helmets as one AP lower than the rest of the package to simulate this). Further, the head location is the one that is generally the last to receive any armour at all - apart from feudal plate, primitive armour doesn't even have a helmet.

But yes, the idea of the rule is not so much to simulate realistic combat but rather give those who want to use single-shot weapons to actually do decent damage in combat compared to those who simply go for bursts.

The IH has several accurate single shot weapons, among them laspistols, regular pistols, a bow and some rifles.

The acolytes shouldn't have to use the IH to have a decent weapon (lots of those in there seems OP anyway).

As for helmets, well even if it's not in the equipment list I'd allow it as metal helmets were common with mail armor and i can see no reason why it shouldn't exist in WH40k.

The acolytes shouldn't have to use the IH to have a decent weapon (lots of those in there seems OP anyway).

After the errata? Name three...

I don't have the book atm, but generally weapons are better than in DH

Isn't there still a heavy pistol with more damage than a heavy stubber?

your thinking of the unreliable tranter? that deals 1d10+5 damage pen 2? when the heavy stopper does 1d10+4 pen 3 times up to 10 shots, at a way better range, so when enemies have 2 or less armor there is a gun that deals more damage than a single bullet from a heavy stupper... and the heavy stupper is not meant to kill its meant to supress the enemy.

Yes, a handgun that can be used in close combat for 1d10+5 damage is pretty scary in itself, not even counting the penetration. Sure, it's unreliable and that why you use a backup handgun.

Heavy stubbers (machineguns) are surely meant to kill as well as suppress. The core rules already has a "hand cannon", but the IH had to introduce firearms better than in the core book.

I'm not sure if the IH guns are OP enough to ban outright, but they surely are a cut above the standard weapons.

it is worth noticing that the tranter is so big it requires a 4 SB to count as a pistol, otherwise its a 2h that cannot be used in melee, and its likely the most intimitating gun, short of a bolter.

it is worth noticing that the tranter is so big it requires a 4 SB to count as a pistol, otherwise its a 2h that cannot be used in melee, and its likely the most intimitating gun, short of a bolter.

...at which point you can just grab a mono melee weapon which also lets you parry.

And I guess the intimidation would still be a little below that of the Heavy Stubber.

Heavy stubbers (machineguns) are surely meant to kill as well as suppress. The core rules already has a "hand cannon", but the IH had to introduce firearms better than in the core book.

I'm not sure if the IH guns are OP enough to ban outright, but they surely are a cut above the standard weapons.

Most of the ones with the higher damage and penetration have the drawback of a very low ammo capacity or unreliability.

in part about intimatating gun i meant handgun, its hard to lift a heavy stupper up into someones face, generaly many IH weapons are quite rare, and only accessesble on certain forge worlds or IG warzone armoury, along the ammo remember why would there on any planet that dont sells tranter .54 handguns have .54 tranter ammo?

if a gun is powerful in your opinion then simply make it hard to optain and maintain, theres no reason to destroy an entire way for characters to develop through guns, little reason to force players to have a generic handcannon when he can have a scatheros 16 "Blackheart" stormchild handcannon, not that its much better, but a whole lot cooler

Look I was explaining why I'm using the house rule, I haven't banned anything from IH (although Armageddon would be if not for the errata). Most equipment there is fine and adds more color, I even allowed the psyker in my group that has the navy background (void born) to start with the Iron Claw shotgun even if he wouldn't be able to afford a combat shotgun with his starting thrones because it fits and it's really not unbalanced.

However, I'd like the acolytes to be able to do more damage as their WS/BS improves and situational modifiers improves their fighting ability, and not just rely on bigger and better guns.

So far only the psyker has an IH weapon, while the noble assassin has just bought the armored bodyglove or whatever it's called (Hive armor i think).

Are you guys sure that the tranter cannot be used in close combat with two hands? AFAIK all pistol weapons can be used, and it's not specified if you use it in one or two hands, in fact many handguns users use them in two hands even if they could use it in one. Core rules say you cannot use a gun in melee unless it is classed as a pistol.

However if the tranter description specifically says you need 4SB to use it in close combat I'll accede to your point.

the point is a tranter becomes a basic weapon if you dont have 4 SB, and basic weapons arent pistols so no melee gunslinging with that.

Some of the weapons in IH are unquestionably more effective than the core versions for the same price (eg Palatine, Armsman-10) but that's realistic enough when factoring in availability and that these are built from scratch for the purpose - not the hack and slash upgrades in the core book.

I do like the idea put forward in this thread of increasing finesse damage - with all the calm accuracy in the world, there is no other way to make a non-Accurate, non-Basic (according to the Errata's wording) single aimed shot more damaging, to compete with Auto/Semi-Auto (increasing the chance of a called shot not being too useful against a target with lots of wounds carrying a very damaging weapon).

So, to answer the OP:

Seems to me if you want to create an increase in damage that depends on skill rather than luck, tying it to the first three degrees of success is not the way to go about it, because it essentially creates three kinds of hit (only just hit, fair hit +1 damage, great hit +2 damage). Regardless of your BS you'll have a 20% chance to get something other than a great hit.

So I would go for +1 damage per two degrees of success, so people with a low BS are going to end up being unable to get a "great hit" except through a stack of bonuses. It would also heighten the difference between high and low BS characters somewhat compared with the OP.

I don't think this would be overpowered. As others have said it might not be necessary, but I do think it adds something - you get the extra satisfaction when people roll a particularly good hit, which just doesn't happen under the standard rules.

Yep, +1 Dam per 2DOS feels absolutely spot on! I'll be trying that one out for sure.

I would also suggest that this would only apply when aiming. Or for example +1 damage for every 3 DoS when not aiming / every 2 DoS when aiming.

Isn't this what the Mighty Shot talent is for?

Hmm I did consider 2 degrees of success per point of damage, but it takes alot of circumstantial mods and skill to get more than +1 damage then. Point blank against an unaware opponent would work, but damage could still be fairly low (say 7 damage with a low roll for most sp, which any basic guardsman shrugs off easily).

I think I'll keep +1 dam per degree of success, but i might have limitless damage on aimed shots (with non-accurate weapons, accurate weapons uses either this OR +d10 per 2 degrees with aimed shots).

Oh and mighty shot is nice, but unavailable to most characters and does not reward very good hits, just overall hits, which is not the point of the house-rule.

For those point blank gun ambushes there should probably be some coup de grace-like rules. WHFRP had something like max damage and d10 extra for attacks on helpless targets, not sure if DH has them.

Not sure about the balance of the last one though.

Hi!

Talking "Effect of extra succes & house rule"

I made up something similiar in notion, but different in effect:

"If the damage dice shows a number that is equal or lower then (level of success x2), then use (level of success x2) instead of the dice role"
This is for 1d10+x weapons. If the weapon uses w5, it is "level of success" instead of " "x2". It the damage has more then one dice, the rule is applied to the lowest dice.

I do not simply "add" levels of success since it raises the max. damage output of char & I do not where his could unbalance somethint somewhere really hard.
This way, it is puts a "skilled" fighter a little more into the higher end of the damage output scale, instead of changing the max. damage.

The rule isn´t "fine tuned" (especially when comes to weapons with more dice/ d5 weapons) but more about "staying simple".

Gregorius21778 said:

I like this rule. However, I'm not so sure about the x2. That means even someone with a fairly poor BS and no bonuses, will quite often be automatically rolling well above minimum damage.

Also: this will be much better with low-damage weapons than with high-damage weapons (which will rarely roll low enough for the rule to take effect). So what about saying that every individual die roll that comes in under the #successes (or #successes x 2) benefits from the effect.

Example: Dude Mcdudeson rolls three degrees of success with an inferno pistol. He rolls damage - a 6 and a 1, for 11 points of damage. But with the house rule, the 1 gets increased to a 3 (or 6 if you use the x2) so his net damage is 13 (or 16).