Which brings us again to Proven(4 or 5)

But yes, that seems to be the way to go.

ANd it would be something that could be quite easily done in an errata.

I have to confirm Nimsims point of view regarding statistics here (even if I dont like him at all).

Currently, the effect is so low, that it makes no sense.

And even the "stabilizing effect" it has in the cases of very low rolls is too minor to have any real effect, especially in the face of DoS-exchange.

So either Proven should be made higher (I think this is the easiest and best way to solve this), or it should enable to re-roll once, if a lower number than X is rolled (in this case it would be a minor version of tearing.

Having proven (4) instead of proven (2) would already be much more interesting.

Yep, that pretty much sums the problem I have with Proven too. I'm still on the fence about bumping up all Provens, but I'm supporting doing that more than before. Proven isn't handed out very often after all. I think the highest I've seen is a conditional Proven (4) on the <Only War - Hammer of the Emperor> [Cavalry Spear]. Would a conservative reaction to be to increase all existing Provens by 2 then? Or were people thinking giving Proven (7) and up to every weapon that already has Proven?

I think bumping all instances of Proven up by two would be good enough for me. It's still not always too great, but that's fine since, as has been pointed out, it doesn't actually have to be powerful . It's a houserule I'd use anyway.

I have to confirm Nimsims point of view regarding statistics here (even if I dont like him at all).

*kisses* to you, too

I think bumping all instances of Proven up by two would be good enough for me. It's still not always too great, but that's fine since, as has been pointed out, it doesn't actually have to be powerful . It's a houserule I'd use anyway.

This is a general question for everyone suggesting doing Proven 4 or 5: what do you think would be wrong with Proven 7 or 8? I ran the math and it wouldn't be very overpowering. So what is your reason for choosing a lower number for Proven?

This is a general question for everyone suggesting doing Proven 4 or 5: what do you think would be wrong with Proven 7 or 8? I ran the math and it wouldn't be very overpowering. So what is your reason for choosing a lower number for Proven?

Personally, my goal is to make Proven "useful" but not "strong". Proven (4) is more appreciable than Proven (1 or 2) with that DoS-substitution rule in play. Using Proven (7) as a base feels weird to me, screaming in my face with large numbers. Like, would fresh new Feral Worlders get Proven (7) on every Low-Tech weapon they pick up? That's a minimum of 14 Damage per hit on a Great Weapon before Strength and enemy Armour and such. Other starting characters might pick up an autopistol that will only score a few and/or weak hits most of the time, burning ammo all the while. Giving starting Feral Worlders Proven (5) is more reasonable to me. This is an early-game perspective rather than the late-game perspectives I normally take.

This is a general question for everyone suggesting doing Proven 4 or 5: what do you think would be wrong with Proven 7 or 8? I ran the math and it wouldn't be very overpowering. So what is your reason for choosing a lower number for Proven?

Personally, my goal is to make Proven "useful" but not "strong". Proven (4) is more appreciable than Proven (1 or 2) with that DoS-substitution rule in play. Using Proven (7) as a base feels weird to me, screaming in my face with large numbers. Like, would fresh new Feral Worlders get Proven (7) on every Low-Tech weapon they pick up? That's a minimum of 14 Damage per hit on a Great Weapon before Strength and enemy Armour and such. Other starting characters might pick up an autopistol that will only score a few and/or weak hits most of the time, burning ammo all the while. Giving starting Feral Worlders Proven (5) is more reasonable to me. This is an early-game perspective rather than the late-game perspectives I normally take.

I had to smile when you mentioned "Proven (1)" ;D

I think bumping all instances of Proven up by two would be good enough for me. It's still not always too great, but that's fine since, as has been pointed out, it doesn't actually have to be powerful . It's a houserule I'd use anyway.

This is a general question for everyone suggesting doing Proven 4 or 5: what do you think would be wrong with Proven 7 or 8? I ran the math and it wouldn't be very overpowering. So what is your reason for choosing a lower number for Proven?

I dont ahve a problem with the statistical change in average this means, but with the very small variety the outcome has.

I think everything thats over Proven (6) is a little to much for most situations.

But thats just me. From a statistical pojnt of view, it wouldnt be breaking the game to have a proven (7) or (8).

I think having it range from proven (4) as lowest to proven (6) as highest would already make it useful but not too powerful.

I think bumping all instances of Proven up by two would be good enough for me. It's still not always too great, but that's fine since, as has been pointed out, it doesn't actually have to be powerful . It's a houserule I'd use anyway.

This is a general question for everyone suggesting doing Proven 4 or 5: what do you think would be wrong with Proven 7 or 8? I ran the math and it wouldn't be very overpowering. So what is your reason for choosing a lower number for Proven?

I dont ahve a problem with the statistical change in average this means, but with the very small variety the outcome has.

I think everything thats over Proven (6) is a little to much for most situations.

But thats just me. From a statistical pojnt of view, it wouldnt be breaking the game to have a proven (7) or (8).

I think having it range from proven (4) as lowest to proven (6) as highest would already make it useful but not too powerful.

Well, this logic makes sense to me. I wonder if it would be better to just have Proven add 1d5 to weapon damage. You still get some variability there, and it's a lot more useful. Bumps up the average by 3 damage, though, which is a pretty big chunk.

But in this case, I'd just make the weapon damage higher instead of adding a quality...

ANother question would be, if proven stacks with each other, and, if it maybe should stack somehow with the DoS-exchange.

If it would stack somehow with DoS-exchange, it would also become much more useful.

Lets say you have proven (2) and 3 DoS. This could result in a virtual proven (5) effect.

Or Proven could just always add X to your degrees of success. At that point it would be fine at current values, able to add to damage and helping rapid attacks.

Proven (1) is totally a thing. Rolls of 0 or lower count as 1 instead. Obviously. ...'scuse me while I facepalm.

If we're walking about qualities adding Damage, Force weapons add PR Damage, PR Pen, and a possible extra 1d10 E Damage. I wouldn't be against Proven raising Damage or generating 1d5s. Adding DoS I'm disagreeing with though. Get some weird incentives with Storm weapon and such. Unless those extra DoS are only for the purpose of that DoS-substitution mechanic, then maybe.

Having Proven add to your DoS is not enough, since the DoS-Exchange affects at most one Die per Attack which gets worse in comparison to Proven the more d10s per Hit and the more Hits you land. And then it has all the odd side-effects with other talents, so DoS is not an ideal variant.

+1d5 or more seems to be contrary to the point of Proven, by simply adding damage, instead of reliability.
I think making Proven only range from 4-6 with truly exceptional unique weapons having Proven 7-9 perhaps, would be the best way to go.

I think making Proven only range from 4-6 with truly exceptional unique weapons having Proven 7-9 perhaps, would be the best way to go.

Right then. All of your points are completely valid. That was the solution I was leaning most towards anyway.

I think the idea to make Proven add DoS instead is not too bad.

Yes, you get the DoS-exchange only once (which is enough for most weapons anyway).

But another benefit this new rule would give, would be additional hits with semi-auto and auto-fire.

I think the idea to make Proven add DoS instead is not too bad.

Yes, you get the DoS-exchange only once (which is enough for most weapons anyway).

But another benefit this new rule would give, would be additional hits with semi-auto and auto-fire.

Exactly! The point of me suggesting it was that it both increases the "minimum" per the DoS exchange for damage roll rule, AND it can add extra hits to rapid attacks. That and weapons that would have big edge cases (like force weapons) could just not be given the proven quality. Simple enough. I think of all the ideas I like keeping the numbers at 2 or 3 and adding it to DoS is the best idea.

I have a few issues with the DoS "fix":

• First is the exclusion that you mentioned. Would there be any compensation for any weapons that would normally have Proven but are in the "edge case" category? It's not uncommon for weapons to be granted Proven under special circumstances.
• Second is that Proven would stack with other sources of DoS. In extreme cases, attacks could just be reduced to hit-confirms for the minimum 8 hits that are going out. This concern won't really come into play without cross-book referencing.
• Third is how universally beneficial this Proven would be. With either a Lightning Attack or a Full Auto action, Proven guarantees a certain number of hits. This Proven eclipses Tearing in boosting average damage, does it not? I don't think helping Proven should drive it over its "competition" (I use the word lightly).

Are these items already in your consideration? Not that I'm accusing you, but these seem like pertinent issues. This Proven change transforms it from a nice-to-have quality into a game-changing must-have in my view.

I have a few issues with the DoS "fix":

• First is the exclusion that you mentioned. Would there be any compensation for any weapons that would normally have Proven but are in the "edge case" category? It's not uncommon for weapons to be granted Proven under special circumstances.
• Second is that Proven would stack with other sources of DoS. In extreme cases, attacks could just be reduced to hit-confirms for the minimum 8 hits that are going out. This concern won't really come into play without cross-book referencing.
• Third is how universally beneficial this Proven would be. With either a Lightning Attack or a Full Auto action, Proven guarantees a certain number of hits. This Proven eclipses Tearing in boosting average damage, does it not? I don't think helping Proven should drive it over its "competition" (I use the word lightly).

Are these items already in your consideration? Not that I'm accusing you, but these seem like pertinent issues. This Proven change transforms it from a nice-to-have quality into a game-changing must-have in my view.

1) literally none of the weapons that currently have proven would need to be changed at all. Not would the feral worlder ability. Edge case I was referring to not adding this house rule proven to weapons that don't already have proven.

2) there aren't a lot of sources that just add to DoS, and this ability would only work on a successful hit. There's only one book out to use it with, so no problem there. Proven only exists on less than a dozen weapons in the entire 40K line, anway.

3) there's a nice boost to minimum damage using the DoS rule for damage, and the extra hits can make proven even more useful. It will be mildly useful for single hits, and super useful for rapid attacks. Given that tearing helps with righteous fury, I don't see proven possibly adding extra hits with rapid attacks as being too overpowered.

My perspective is encompassing all the books. If you had this Proven change in mind solely for <Dark Heresy Second Edition>, my concerns don't hold much weight. I'm just looking out for those extreme cases where people start mixing certain books and start breaking things.

Aren't [Force] weapons one of the edge cases you mentioned? With [The Old Ways] granting 3 additional DoS, Force weapons get 4 hits minimum out of a Lightning Attack, no? I'm not sure if Force is supposed to check for that extra d10 per hit, but the Lightning Attack by itself deals a good chunk of Damage.

I still stand by just adding +2 to existing Proven ratings across the books. The goal, in my eyes, is to make Proven useful, not strong. The Proven that's being discussed now may as well be a different quality entirely.

But in this case, I'd just make the weapon damage higher instead of adding a quality...

ANother question would be, if proven stacks with each other, and, if it maybe should stack somehow with the DoS-exchange.

If it would stack somehow with DoS-exchange, it would also become much more useful.

Lets say you have proven (2) and 3 DoS. This could result in a virtual proven (5) effect.

This is the answer that I was about to suggest. When done this way, there's no need to inflate the Proven ratings, and it works nicely with the DoS rule too. I don't really see any disadvantages to doing it this way.

Note that the DoS only works with one die of damage though, so with Proven 2 and 3 DoS, one damage die has an effect of Proven 5 while any further dice have only the true Proven 2.

But in this case, I'd just make the weapon damage higher instead of adding a quality...

ANother question would be, if proven stacks with each other, and, if it maybe should stack somehow with the DoS-exchange.

If it would stack somehow with DoS-exchange, it would also become much more useful.

Lets say you have proven (2) and 3 DoS. This could result in a virtual proven (5) effect.

This is the answer that I was about to suggest. When done this way, there's no need to inflate the Proven ratings, and it works nicely with the DoS rule too. I don't really see any disadvantages to doing it this way.

Note that the DoS only works with one die of damage though, so with Proven 2 and 3 DoS, one damage die has an effect of Proven 5 while any further dice have only the true Proven 2.

Still no problem, even with multiple dice (it doesnt worsen with the new DoS approach, but only improves the first dice).

So, who is gonna send this to the developers now ?

So what exactly does your proposed Proven do? If you could write it as it would appear in the rulebook, that would be most helpful. This conversation has jumped all over the place so I find it difficult to pinpoint what it is that you want out of Proven.

Proven (X): When a successful attack is made with this weapon, add X to the degrees of success. Anything applying to the degrees of success of the attack roll uses this new total. For example, a successful attack roll with 2 degrees of success made with a proven 2 weapon counts as having 4 degrees of success.

I haven't checked, but "attack" is still a broad category of actions, yes?