Proven (X). The weapon causes zealous hatred on rolls of X and up.

Proven (X). The weapon causes zealous hatred on rolls of X and up.

In DH-2e, this is already covered by the new (to my knowledge) [Vengeful {Quality}].

+1

There is something truly boss about having, say; a Guardsman, take on something big and nasty - with a knife.

And triumph.

On this note, how does Proven work with weapons that use d5s for damage? If you roll a 1 and have Proven(2), does that count as having rolled a 2 (in which case, still 1 damage), or do you do 2 damage?

On this note, how does Proven work with weapons that use d5s for damage? If you roll a 1 and have Proven(2), does that count as having rolled a 2 (in which case, still 1 damage), or do you do 2 damage?

My opinion is that the former applies, halving a weapon's effective Proven rating. The latter would have some weird edge cases.

d5 Roll: This follows the same process as above, but the player or GM divides the result on each ten-sided die by two and rounds up, to create a result between 1 and 5 for each die.

+

Proven (X)

These weapons always inflict massive trauma. When rolling for damage with these weapons, any die result lower than the number

in parentheses (X) counts as that number instead. Thus, a Proven (3) weapon would treat any die result of 1 or 2 as a 3 for the

purposes of calculating damage.

Since the die only produces results in the 1-5 range (regardless of rolling it on a D10), I'd have to go with the latter.

Has it occured to any of you that the point of Proven is to provide weapons with a non-elite weapon improvement?

If all weapons with Proven were upped to Proven(6) to give them parity with Tearing then one of them becomes obsolete.

If Proven(X) gives a bonus to penetration or decreases Armour or Toughness then you start treading on the toes of Vengeful, or Razor Sharp.

All of the above qualities are potentially very powerful, and if combined with certain weapons they could be considered overly powerful.

Proven gives a nice, small buff to a group of weapons without cross-overs and without any issues of balance. It's a good ability rather than a best ability.

Or to put it another way: rather than asking whether you'd prefer Proven(2) or Tearing, why not instead ask would I prefer Proven(2) or nothing ?

Has it occured to any of you that the point of Proven is to provide weapons with a non-elite weapon improvement?

If all weapons with Proven were upped to Proven(6) to give them parity with Tearing then one of them becomes obsolete.

If Proven(X) gives a bonus to penetration or decreases Armour or Toughness then you start treading on the toes of Vengeful, or Razor Sharp.

All of the above qualities are potentially very powerful, and if combined with certain weapons they could be considered overly powerful.

Proven gives a nice, small buff to a group of weapons without cross-overs and without any issues of balance. It's a good ability rather than a best ability.

Or to put it another way: rather than asking whether you'd prefer Proven(2) or Tearing, why not instead ask would I prefer Proven(2) or nothing ?

Like I said, Proven has exactly one function. To increase minimum damage. It's it's one and only function.

I don't think it got through to some of the more thick-headed people on the board.

The real problem with proven, and many other qualities, is that there's no real system of what goes on what weapon beyond tearing for bolt and toxic for poisonous, so interpretations of what proven even means for a gun vary greatly.

The real problem with proven, and many other qualities, is that there's no real system of what goes on what weapon beyond tearing for bolt and toxic for poisonous, so interpretations of what proven even means for a gun vary greatly.

Mileage may vary, but my interpretation is that Proven as a Special Quality is just something that signifies that a weapon is of a particularly good make, and simply reliable to some degree from a damage standpoint.

Like so many other Special Qualities, there's no defined prerequisite to fulfil in order to qualify. There's a lot of weapons with Tearing that aren't Bolt- or Chain-weapons, a lot of Flame that doesn't go on Flame-weapons.

If we're going to argue over nonsense definitions of what makes a Special Weapon Quality, let's start with Felling. It's a Quality that somehow reduces Unnatural Toughness Bonus, but not natural Toughness Bonus, despite the rationale for the Quality that it "...makes a mockery of even the most resilient enemies, cutting dense tissue and bone with ease."

Proven? Pfft, anything that causes additional trauma, performs above expectation, is well-crafted or just packs a punch above the norm. Now, in reality, that may not always be a good argument, given the generally low impact of Proven on average, but it certainly fits the bill.

Felling? Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

Less point to argue and more the reason for arguments. If there's no real reason a weapon has a quality, you have to figure one out for yourself, which leads to threads like this.

For example, from a realism point of view, situations like I've seen in game where players can shrug off multiple grenade blasts should not happen. Even a proven rating of "just" proven (3) would prevent this from happening, bypassing standard TBs and highlighting the need for body armour.

From a rules point of view in Hammer of the Emperor, proven apparently means a very old, reliable design. That should get more than proven, it should get reliable as well, logically.

In Deathwatch, proven values generally range from 3-5. Same with some war weaponry in OW as well.

But throughout these books, some weapons that are described as reliable and such do not have proven, others do. There's no truly definiitive characteristic, which is a problem . Because by the fluff design, most proven weapons should not only have proven, but reliable as well. And vice versa. Instead it's usually either/or, for two very similar traits.

And yes, felling is a headache.

The problem you face here is the classic one of confusing fluff with rules. The description of Proven and its game effect are not necessarily going to equate.

Having said that, while you may or may not agree with the descriptions, most people here appear to be arguing that the trait itself is worthless - especially when compared against other weapon traits.

What I would argue is that you can't compare against other traits - some are supposed to be better than others, just like some talents are better than others. You need to compare it agaist not having the trait at all, and in that respect it's clearly got a lot going for it in improving the base reliability of a weapon's minimum damage.

And once the DH2 Inquisitor's Handbook comes out, I'm sure we'll see a lot more weapons with Proven (3-6) to go alongside krak missiles.

Or to put it another way: rather than asking whether you'd prefer Proven(2) or Tearing, why not instead ask would I prefer Proven(2) or nothing ?

Given how ineffective Proven (2) is I'm not sure I'd notice the difference.

Like I said, Proven has exactly one function. To increase minimum damage. It's it's one and only function.

I don't think it got through to some of the more thick-headed people on the board.

You need some sort of special forum badge for being an expert in vague, passive aggressive insults.

edit: Just want to remind everyone that this thread is a discussion of the mechanics of weapon special qualities, not the fluff for them. Fluff is irrelevant in a mechanical discussion.

Hmm. Until now I felt that Proven (<5) was absolutely worthless, but it could really give frag grenades or sniper rifles the necessary reliability, damage-wise. Although it'd still have to be Proven(4+), I feel, without having done the math.

And Felling really needs to apply to all TB, not just UT.

Basically proven becomes worth more, the more dice are involved. On single d10 weapons, you actually DO see proven 5+ at times. On heavy weaponry with 3d10, just proven 3. So on grenades, which are usually 2d10, proven 2 is a minimum of four damage, proven 3 is six, and proven 4 is eight. Depending on what sort of lethality you're going for, all are valid. Given that heavy weapons generally have higher minimal damage ratings, when you add up the proven d10s, I'd err towards a higher value on grenades as well, given they are one shot heavy weapons and from what I see, on proven heavies, the minimum damage is generally nine or higher.

Hmm. Until now I felt that Proven (<5) was absolutely worthless, but it could really give frag grenades or sniper rifles the necessary reliability, damage-wise. Although it'd still have to be Proven(4+), I feel, without having done the math.

And Felling really needs to apply to all TB, not just UT.

Completely agreed on both counts. The idea of Proven applying to (some) grenades never occurred to me, but it's actually an excellent way to ensure that those situations where you end up doing the lowest possible damage doesn't happen. Proven (3) for Frag Grenades, for starters.

Felling applying to all (non-Daemonic?) TB would make it an incredible powerful Special Quality. But I'd be fine with that, and at least then it'd make sense.

Proven(3) on frags is pretty much what Proven was invented for.

I've rolled double whiffs on frags so often down the years I almost gave up using them.

Almost.

Has it occured to any of you that the point of Proven is to provide weapons with a non-elite weapon improvement?

If all weapons with Proven were upped to Proven(6) to give them parity with Tearing then one of them becomes obsolete.

If Proven(X) gives a bonus to penetration or decreases Armour or Toughness then you start treading on the toes of Vengeful, or Razor Sharp.

All of the above qualities are potentially very powerful, and if combined with certain weapons they could be considered overly powerful.

Proven gives a nice, small buff to a group of weapons without cross-overs and without any issues of balance. It's a good ability rather than a best ability.

Or to put it another way: rather than asking whether you'd prefer Proven(2) or Tearing, why not instead ask would I prefer Proven(2) or nothing ?

Like I said, Proven has exactly one function. To increase minimum damage. It's it's one and only function.

I don't think it got through to some of the more thick-headed people on the board.

Have you figured out how basic statistics work, yet?

Has it occured to any of you that the point of Proven is to provide weapons with a non-elite weapon improvement?

If all weapons with Proven were upped to Proven(6) to give them parity with Tearing then one of them becomes obsolete.

If Proven(X) gives a bonus to penetration or decreases Armour or Toughness then you start treading on the toes of Vengeful, or Razor Sharp.

All of the above qualities are potentially very powerful, and if combined with certain weapons they could be considered overly powerful.

Proven gives a nice, small buff to a group of weapons without cross-overs and without any issues of balance. It's a good ability rather than a best ability.

Or to put it another way: rather than asking whether you'd prefer Proven(2) or Tearing, why not instead ask would I prefer Proven(2) or nothing ?

Statistically, (am I the ONLY person left on this forum who bothers running or looking at math?) Proven 2's effect can be rounded down to 0, making it indistinguishable from having no effect. You might as well ask if I'd rather have the +1 to handstand interrogations of daemons or nothing.

Basically proven becomes worth more, the more dice are involved. On single d10 weapons, you actually DO see proven 5+ at times. On heavy weaponry with 3d10, just proven 3. So on grenades, which are usually 2d10, proven 2 is a minimum of four damage, proven 3 is six, and proven 4 is eight. Depending on what sort of lethality you're going for, all are valid. Given that heavy weapons generally have higher minimal damage ratings, when you add up the proven d10s, I'd err towards a higher value on grenades as well, given they are one shot heavy weapons and from what I see, on proven heavies, the minimum damage is generally nine or higher.

Proven 2 on a weapon that deals 5d10 damage adds a total of .5 extra damage on average. This barely could be rounded up to not be worthless. Again, people are ignoring the actual math of weapon effectiveness in favor of feel. I will go ahead and post the math for everyone to look at.

All damage given is the effect on average damage of a d10 (normally 5.5) aka the general effect over multiple uses

Proven 2: +0.1 damage

Proven 3: +0.3

Proven 4: +0.6

Proven 5: +1.0

Proven 6: +1.5

Proven 7: +2.1

Proven 8: +2.8

Proven 9: +3.6

Proven 10: +4.5

Tearing: +1.65, AND increases chances of 1d10 rolling righteous fury from 10% to 19%.

Proven and multiple d10s: Simply multiply the average damage by the number of d10s. For example, Proven 3 for 3d10 would add 0.9 to the average damage.

Please use this math to inform your arguments about the Proven quality, unless you are fgdsfg, who is currently devise an alternate mathematical system to probability which he is using to interpret these numbers.

So on grenades, which are usually 2d10, proven 2 is a minimum of four damage, proven 3 is six, and proven 4 is eight.

Which bears out my feeling that Proven(4) would be necessary: This would make sure that even the worst roll on a grenade is gonna do a bit of damage on an average armored person with TB 3 and AP 4. Although not if it is flak armour, making flak armour a bit more cool. And it should increase the chance of dealing damage rather much, because having a 5+ on one dice is enough to overcome even that, giving you at least 50% chance of hurting an average human with flak armour. Which is still a tad weak for my taste, but better than it is now.

Proven(5) would probably still be more appropriate, but I could live with Proven(4) on frags.

Having seen Nimsim's post: Proven(4) on 2d10 adds +1.2 damage, which is underwhelming, but at least does something, but Proven(5) adds +2 damage, which is starting to get you somewhere.

Nimsim, if I may ask, what's the probabilities on dealing 8 damage vs >8 damage for 2d10 Proven(4)?

So on grenades, which are usually 2d10, proven 2 is a minimum of four damage, proven 3 is six, and proven 4 is eight.

Which bears out my feeling that Proven(4) would be necessary: This would make sure that even the worst roll on a grenade is gonna do a bit of damage on an average armored person with TB 3 and AP 4. Although not if it is flak armour, making flak armour a bit more cool. And it should increase the chance of dealing damage rather much, because having a 5+ on one dice is enough to overcome even that, giving you at least 50% chance of hurting an average human with flak armour. Which is still a tad weak for my taste, but better than it is now.

Proven(5) would probably still be more appropriate, but I could live with Proven(4) on frags.

Well, if you went with Proven 7, it would increase average damage by 4.2, basically enough to negate most toughness bonus and allow the remaining average of 11 damage to bring in un-armored person down to very few wounds or take a good chunk out of an armored one.

So on grenades, which are usually 2d10, proven 2 is a minimum of four damage, proven 3 is six, and proven 4 is eight.

Having seen Nimsim's post: Proven(4) on 2d10 adds +1.2 damage, which is underwhelming, but at least does something, but Proven(5) adds +2 damage, which is starting to get you somewhere.

Nimsim, if I may ask, what's the probabilities on dealing 8 damage vs >8 damage for 2d10 Proven(4)?

The average damage would be 12.2

2d10 Proven 4

8 16.00%

9 8.00%

10 9.00%

11 10.00%

12 11.00%

13 12.00%

14 13.00%

15 6.00%

16 5.00%

17 4.00%

18 3.00%

19 2.00%

20 1.00%

http://anydice.com/ is a great resource to generate probabilities for just about any kind of dice.

edit: it even generates pretty graphs!

And for kicks, here's the damage for 2d10 Proven 7

output 1 (15.20 average damage)

# %

14 49.00%

15 14.00%

16 15.00%

17 16.00%

18 3.00%

19 2.00%

20 1.00%

Compared to the regular 2d10

output 1 (11.00 average damage)

# %

2 1.00%

3 2.00%

4 3.00%

5 4.00%

6 5.00%

7 6.00%

8 7.00%

9 8.00%

10 9.00%

11 10.00%

12 9.00%

13 8.00%

14 7.00%

15 6.00%

16 5.00%

17 4.00%

18 3.00%

19 2.00%

20 1.00%

Thanks cps, so with anydice, here's the probabilities for Proven 2-6: http://anydice.com/program/48fe

I think Proven 4 or 5 hits the spot, depending on whether you want there to be a chance of no damage or not.

Have you figured out how basic statistics work, yet?

It's misrepresentative.

Statistics are useless without the skills to interpret them.

Please use this math to inform your arguments about the Proven quality, unless you are fgdsfg, who is currently devise an alternate mathematical system to probability which he is using to interpret these numbers.

Wow, Nimsim. You'rve utterly failed to understand any of my points or even the point of statistics.

1. I have a PhD in chemistry. I use stats on a regular basis far above the level you're displaying here.

Just because I can use them doesn't mean I should. And just because I haven't doesn't mean you should cast aspertions on my intelligence.

2. Minimum damage has zero to do with the statistics you're quoting. Proven(2) may not increase the statistical damage of a weapon by much, but it decreases the chances of getting a 1 by 100%. That's some pretty powerful stats right there.

You can use stats to prove that the average damage doesn't do much, but for all your brains you have completely failed to understand the point of the trait.

3. I still really don't understand your obsession with making all traits do something amazing.

Some traits do somthing small, and when that happens it's just a nice thing to have happened, rather than some game-breaking powergaming must-have weapon quality. Some people actually play this game for fun, you know?