I agree with most of those complaints about the core system, and can add more:

Weapon power levels make them either nearly useless, or instant kill- both of which are boring results- with very few weapons forming any kind of 'happy medium'. This has the effect of forcing min/maxing rather than encouraging characters to use 'characterful' weapons, such as Kal Jericho's signature twin laspistols- joke weapons in WH40KRP.

I think this is only partially the fault of the weapon profiles (if at all), but rather of the stacking layers of protection that result in a wide range of resilience. Even normal humans in DH could sport anything from 3-14 (not counting Ascension) in terms of damage mitigation, and whilst Pen values helped alleviate the issue somewhat, they didn't remove it entirely (especially as the most common weapons had zero Pen).

With such a large gap, it gets very tricky if not impossible to design weapon profiles that are a threat or at least a concern for anyone without being overkill for some. Of course, the dice-based randomness of weapon damage didn't exactly help either.

This approach really began to show its downsides when Marines were added, though, further expanding the range of damage negation ... and ultimately leading to the designers implementing band-aids such as the Felling trait or Horde rules (which, in their newest iteration, are essentially two different rulesets, treating characters based on their "race", as apparently even the developer now regards the system as being unable to treat characters by the same laws).

There were a lot of good ideas thrown around (and don't get me wrong, the product line saw much improvement in certain sectors), it's just that the overall result was still overshadowed by what I perceive as "legacy flaws" that the studio was either unwilling or unable to replace with something better.

The general thought was that GW mandated certain standard elements, such as a percentile base, which prevented FFG from attempting something true ly innovative, like they did with their Star Wars rpg.

Is that just hearsay based on fans desiring to point fingers, or did the designers really allude to this? The foreword for the DW RPG included a message from GW that included a remark about the FFG team having had "a lot of different ideas" than them, so it doesn't seem like they were generally opposed to alternate approaches (which becomes especially clear once you compare certain background elements in these RPGs with GWs own books).

Of course, at the same time I do not doubt that GW could simply be very inconsistent with what they would decree. It'd fit to other things I've heard from certain authors.

I'll just throw this out there, but I think the resistance to "space marines don't even have gender because they're all eunuchs" argument is that space marines are men in every other way (pronouns, appearance, voice, etc). Sexual politics of genitals defining gender aside, the asexual nature of space marines doesn't change the fact that they're all male. If the point of them is asexuality, then why do they have to look like men rather than androgynous. Why not have space marines look like angels, beautiful and terrible to behold, existing beyond gender? If that sounds too Slaaneshi to you, then I'd ask what makes the group of warriors not be a bunch of khornites? I don't really get the reasoning for people wanting space marines to only be men, with the generous reason being "well that's just how it's been in the fluff. " Well in that case, Star Wars wouldn't have had any female Jedis until the prequels, because none were ever talked about in movies (Leia was never called a Jedi or trained as a warrior in the movies).

With such a large gap, it gets very tricky if not impossible to design weapon profiles that are a threat or at least a concern for anyone without being overkill for some. Of course, the dice-based randomness of weapon damage didn't exactly help either.

It isn't that tricky at all. You just need players who can understand that facing the wrong end of a plasma gun means certain death because people are not supposed to take a plasma gun hit in the face and just walk away.

With such a large gap, it gets very tricky if not impossible to design weapon profiles that are a threat or at least a concern for anyone without being overkill for some. Of course, the dice-based randomness of weapon damage didn't exactly help either.

It isn't that tricky at all. You just need players who can understand that facing the wrong end of a plasma gun means certain death because people are not supposed to take a plasma gun hit in the face and just walk away.

If the rules were capable of standing on their own legs, we could avoid the headscratcher moments in every 40k game.

With such a large gap, it gets very tricky if not impossible to design weapon profiles that are a threat or at least a concern for anyone without being overkill for some. Of course, the dice-based randomness of weapon damage didn't exactly help either.

It isn't that tricky at all. You just need players who can understand that facing the wrong end of a plasma gun means certain death because people are not supposed to take a plasma gun hit in the face and just walk away.

Problem with this is that a combat isn't going to be that enjoyable if the second someone lands a hit their target is killed. I've written about this before, but the mechanic behind most rpg combat is attrition-based, with the lost resource being the nebulous wound/hp. If you want to do a combat with deadlier weapons, you should probably either change the resource being gradually lost, or model combat in a different way than attrition.

With such a large gap, it gets very tricky if not impossible to design weapon profiles that are a threat or at least a concern for anyone without being overkill for some. Of course, the dice-based randomness of weapon damage didn't exactly help either.

It isn't that tricky at all. You just need players who can understand that facing the wrong end of a plasma gun means certain death because people are not supposed to take a plasma gun hit in the face and just walk away.

Or, you could understand that glancing hits and fleshwounds happen, and that it isn't a "hit in the face" unless the damage roll confirms it.

It isn't that tricky at all. You just need players who can understand that facing the wrong end of a plasma gun means certain death because people are not supposed to take a plasma gun hit in the face and just walk away.

Problem with this is that a combat isn't going to be that enjoyable if the second someone lands a hit their target is killed. I've written about this before, but the mechanic behind most rpg combat is attrition-based, with the lost resource being the nebulous wound/hp. If you want to do a combat with deadlier weapons, you should probably either change the resource being gradually lost, or model combat in a different way than attrition.

I actually enjoy lethality - I think the problem with FFG's 40k RPGs is that it tries to present this as a feature, when it actually isn't that bad once you look closer. Yeah, you have this massive Crit system with finely described injury effects etc, yet before you even get to it you have to overcome three(!) layers of protection in the form of Armour, Toughness AND Hitpoints.

I don't really mind a system either going for high lethality (with immediate injury effects) or taking it slow (with hitpoints), but it feels as if DH is, once again, stuck in the middle and trying to be neither, or everything simultaneously. In this light, the Crit table and bionics almost feel like wasted potential, considering how rarely they find use.

It's not even something that is apparent right from the beginning. It feels nice at the start. It just doesn't scale very well.

Or, you could understand that glancing hits and fleshwounds happen, and that it isn't a "hit in the face" unless the damage roll confirms it.

Abstraction helps a lot, and I'm sure clever GMs can gloss over some awkward results with clever narration. It still appears weird if the same damage roll can have so many different meanings depending on how many hitpoints the target has left. And how, when the target has finally reached 0 Wounds, those glancing hits and flesh wounds suddenly occur a lot less.

To paraphrase another player: "Nothing ... nothing ... nothing ... nothing ... OH GOD WHERE'S MY HEAD"

A bit more consistency might have been nice. It's not as bad as it sounds, but there's just a lot of smaller flaws that join together to form a more problematic experience than the mere sum of their parts, if that makes any sense.

With such a large gap, it gets very tricky if not impossible to design weapon profiles that are a threat or at least a concern for anyone without being overkill for some. Of course, the dice-based randomness of weapon damage didn't exactly help either.

It isn't that tricky at all. You just need players who can understand that facing the wrong end of a plasma gun means certain death because people are not supposed to take a plasma gun hit in the face and just walk away.

Problem with this is that a combat isn't going to be that enjoyable if the second someone lands a hit their target is killed. I've written about this before, but the mechanic behind most rpg combat is attrition-based, with the lost resource being the nebulous wound/hp. If you want to do a combat with deadlier weapons, you should probably either change the resource being gradually lost, or model combat in a different way than attrition.

Or, maybe, simply present combat as an inferior option for problem solving. If your players avoid combat like plague, then nobody will have a problem with lethality, as it will rarely come into play.

With such a large gap, it gets very tricky if not impossible to design weapon profiles that are a threat or at least a concern for anyone without being overkill for some. Of course, the dice-based randomness of weapon damage didn't exactly help either.

It isn't that tricky at all. You just need players who can understand that facing the wrong end of a plasma gun means certain death because people are not supposed to take a plasma gun hit in the face and just walk away.

Or, you could understand that glancing hits and fleshwounds happen, and that it isn't a "hit in the face" unless the damage roll confirms it.

I'm pretty sure that you can't have glancing hits/flesh wounds from a plasma gun. That thing fires a miniature sun - even on the slightest contact, the heat and/or the radiation would kill you instantly.

I'm pretty sure that you can't have glancing hits/flesh wounds from a plasma gun. That thing fires a miniature sun - even on the slightest contact, the heat and/or the radiation would kill you instantly.

I'm pretty sure you have no basis for that statement, since plasma weapons as presented in 40k are pure fantasy with a slim pseudoscientific justification, and thus assessing their real effects is impossible.

If only we had a way to, I don't know, consistently abstract an impact from a made up weapon against people clad in made up armor... like, maybe, some kind of numeric values compared against other numeric values? Maybe ones randomly generated from a certain range to represent that no two hits in real combat are ever exactly the same? That would sure be handy, wouldn't it?

Abstraction helps a lot, and I'm sure clever GMs can gloss over some awkward results with clever narration. It still appears weird if the same damage roll can have so many different meanings depending on how many hitpoints the target has left. And how, when the target has finally reached 0 Wounds, those glancing hits and flesh wounds suddenly occur a lot less.

To paraphrase another player: "Nothing ... nothing ... nothing ... nothing ... OH GOD WHERE'S MY HEAD"

A bit more consistency might have been nice. It's not as bad as it sounds, but there's just a lot of smaller flaws that join together to form a more problematic experience than the mere sum of their parts, if that makes any sense.

"Nothing-nothing-nothing-dead" is an accurate summary of every action movie fight ever, whether it's fought with bronze swords, laser swords, slings or death ray cannons. 40k works on Hollywood logic in practically every aspect of the setting, which IRL would collapse under the sheer weight of it's ridiculousness.

I'm pretty sure that you can't have glancing hits/flesh wounds from a plasma gun. That thing fires a miniature sun - even on the slightest contact, the heat and/or the radiation would kill you instantly.

I'm pretty sure you have no basis for that statement, since plasma weapons as presented in 40k are pure fantasy with a slim pseudoscientific justification, and thus assessing their real effects is impossible.

I don't need any basis for that statement. Plasma weapons instagib people. End of story. Warhammer 40k is not about normal humans shrugging off plasma bolts with a "Whelp! It is just a flesh wound!" Except if said plasma bolts were fired by female space marines. Then I would give it a pass .

If only we had a way to, I don't know, consistently abstract an impact from a made up weapon against people clad in made up armor... like, maybe, some kind of numeric values compared against other numeric values? Maybe ones randomly generated from a certain range to represent that no two hits in real combat are ever exactly the same? That would sure be handy, wouldn't it?

We have autoguns, lasguns, frag grenades and other sh*t/low-tier weapons for that kind of stuff.

I'm pretty sure that you can't have glancing hits/flesh wounds from a plasma gun. That thing fires a miniature sun - even on the slightest contact, the heat and/or the radiation would kill you instantly.

I'm pretty sure you have no basis for that statement, since plasma weapons as presented in 40k are pure fantasy with a slim pseudoscientific justification, and thus assessing their real effects is impossible.

I don't need any basis for that statement. Plasma weapons instagib people. End of story. Warhammer 40k is not about normal humans shrugging off plasma bolts with a "Whelp! It is just a flesh wound!" Except if said plasma bolts were fired by female space marines. Then I would give it a pass .

The Black Knights chapter always triumphs!

I'm pretty sure that you can't have glancing hits/flesh wounds from a plasma gun. That thing fires a miniature sun - even on the slightest contact, the heat and/or the radiation would kill you instantly.

I'm pretty sure you have no basis for that statement, since plasma weapons as presented in 40k are pure fantasy with a slim pseudoscientific justification, and thus assessing their real effects is impossible.

I don't need any basis for that statement. Plasma weapons instagib people. End of story. Warhammer 40k is not about normal humans shrugging off plasma bolts with a "Whelp! It is just a flesh wound!" Except if said plasma bolts were fired by female space marines. Then I would give it a pass .

Warhammer 40k is a game, whether in it's original incarnation as a tabletop wargame or in the spinoff roleplaying game. The rules of these games are literally the only way we can gauge the effectiveness of different weapons. Neither of those rules make plasma weapons "instagib people". This is something you just pulled out of your ass, which puts a damper on your idea that people should understand and accept it.

It's not about weapon strength; it's about how those with said weaposn uses it.

I had 3 bowmen with compound bows in an ambush, and they took down

1- SoB with power armour

2-Tech-priest with dragonscale armour

3-Psyker with sniper rifle and that power that allows him to never miss (or auto-hit) his target

4-The assassin rolled over behind some statue, didn't get a scratch (Rapid reaction helps agaisnt surprise attacks)

Oh the fate points burned that day and the important lessons learned about being discreed and blending into a crowd....

Well i know that most people can't accept the fact but wounds are just a buffer. Scratches, dodges, near misses etc. It;s not like you get plasma canon hit and scream " Tis but a flesh wound" It's just you almost got hit and only get some minor burns. Or you dodged it but fell from table and hit the ground or something like this. It's all depend on the narrative. Ofc you can treat it literally that guy just got hit by plasma in the head but who does that? Like some people said, it's a game in real life you can die from one bullet so guns instagib people so every character without armor should be dead even from one autogun hit

For me, what is essentially boils down to, is this: does the system allow me to co-create the stories with my players that roleplaying is meant for in the first place?

The second edition does this. So did the first edition.

Adapting the wound mechanic from TDE 4th edition is a nice way to settle "nothing nothing dead".

For 40k I would go...

Damage from one hit > TB/2 = 1 wound, greater TB= 2 wounds, greater TB*1.5 = 3 wounds.

3 wounds in one zone puts zone out of commission.

Wounds do a flat -5 to WS, BS, S, Ag each. Head wounds further do -5 to Int, WP and Fel.

Alternatively, the hardcore rules over in the BC house rule section aren't half bad to just nix most of the soak problems.

It's not about weapon strength; it's about how those with said weaposn uses it.

I had 3 bowmen with compound bows in an ambush, and they took down

1- SoB with power armour

Didn't you also use Horde rules with magic damage bonus for said 3 bowmen, and had them headshot said SoB (who didn't wear a helmet at the time) with all their arrows?

You still have a point in regards to how clever use of existing game mechanics can significantly modify their damage profiles, but given that such uses effectively circumvent realism in order to achieve their effect, this may not be a solution for all groups.

"Nothing-nothing-nothing-dead" is an accurate summary of every action movie fight ever, whether it's fought with bronze swords, laser swords, slings or death ray cannons. 40k works on Hollywood logic in practically every aspect of the setting, which IRL would collapse under the sheer weight of it's ridiculousness.

I don't recall any action movie where people get shot and just shrug it off as if it was nothing. I think the cliché is that people are dodging such attacks, but this isn't really what we are talking about here.

Warhammer 40k is a game, whether in it's original incarnation as a tabletop wargame or in the spinoff roleplaying game. The rules of these games are literally the only way we can gauge the effectiveness of different weapons. Neither of those rules make plasma weapons "instagib people". This is something you just pulled out of your ass, which puts a damper on your idea that people should understand and accept it.

Well, he does have a point. Not even Space Marines get to roll Toughness against plasma in the TT. If you're hit and fail your armour save, that's it.

Though I want to point out that it's entirely okay to wish for a bit of survivability even when faced with plasma weaponry, as I'm in the same camp. I'd still like to see an immediate effect, however, which represents this weapon's terrible strength and reputation. Being shot in the naked face and only getting a nice tan isn't very cinematic at all, imo.

It's why I've brought up GW's d100 Inquisitor for comparison in the past. Remove Hitpoints as well as TB's current function as bonus armour, and instead have every shot that punches through your armour see its remaining damage divided by TB. The remaining points go straight into your Crits.

Voila: No instagib, no "nothing happened", but an injury effect suitable for that gun.

It's not about weapon strength; it's about how those with said weaposn uses it.

I had 3 bowmen with compound bows in an ambush, and they took down

1- SoB with power armour

Didn't you also use Horde rules with magic damage bonus for said 3 bowmen, and had them headshot said SoB (who didn't wear a helmet at the time) with all their arrows?

You still have a point in regards to how clever use of existing game mechanics can significantly modify their damage profiles, but given that such uses effectively circumvent realism in order to achieve their effect, this may not be a solution for all groups.

-Check out 80s action movie; Die Hard comes to mind; McLain gets shot, cut, punched, thrown, hung, is shoeless all movie long, still keeps going AND wins at the end.

Last Man Standing is similar; guy gets beaten royally, but still manages to go back to town and kill every mobsters there is.

At this point, might as well say any action movie with Bruce Willis..

------------------------------------------------------

Weapon damage wise, I must admit that the dice can make odd rolls; our group can either manage half a dozen crit damage in a combat, or they only roll 1s and 2s and it makes me laugh...but at the same time, this is a game, but the player ought to be able to get..how can I say this, involved in the universe so when they do face up someone with a plasmagun, boltgun or any other powerful weapon, there is a reaction, a concern,from their character, rather than "it only does XYZ damage with Pen ABC, can't hurt me in my power armour, so I charge in the open."

------------------------------------------------------

Actually no, I used no horde rules, no magical damage bonus....the only thing I did modify was the fact that arrows were Imperial made ('Modern' arrows) rather than being your garden variety medieval-age workmanship stock arrows.

Composite bow is 40m range, 1d10+2R, Pen 1, half-action reload, Primitive... and accurate.

Add in;

Rapid Reload (free action to reload)

Deadeye Shot (called shots are at -10 instead of -20)

Being higher than you (+10)

Ambush/surprise (so +30 for first attack, can't be dodge)

they were in short range of you (for another +10)

So we got this;

3 bowmen with BS45, spending a free action to reload, full action to aim (+20) at their targets' head (-10), firing from an elevated position (+10) while being short range (+10) and they also got the jump on their mark (+30), shooting compound bows each doing 1d10+2 pen1 non-primitive damage with a possibility to add up to an extra 2d10 dice in damage thanks to being an accurate weapon.

First volley, they had 105% to hit...the other they had 75% chance to hit, and since it took a few rounds until one of you can spot their location, it was easy pickings for them..not to mention they had good time to run off before you could even reach them, crowd helping..

and they headshotted all of you actually; faster to kill for one, and second it was the only body part that no one had any armour on, not even a hat....well the Tech-Priest might have had his hood on, but it was made of cloth, not flak.

I think a system based around managing fatigue as a resource, positioning as a resource, and ammo as a resource with the consequence of actually being shot being more narratively based. Basically having to wear down someone's positioning to where you can pull off a clear shot at them seems like a cooler way to handle combat than assigning a bunch of hit points to wear through.

I think a system based around managing fatigue as a resource, positioning as a resource, and ammo as a resource with the consequence of actually being shot being more narratively based. Basically having to wear down someone's positioning to where you can pull off a clear shot at them seems like a cooler way to handle combat than assigning a bunch of hit points to wear through.

Reading your post, I was agreeing, until it hit me; combat in RPGS are, and are always really, more than just people firing off a shot every 3 seconds, so swinging a sword or hammer once during the same delay; they are combats; medieval-like melee, frantic firefights or a little of both. That gunshot or that sword hit is just one of many during that time, possibly that small gap where you believed you can score a hit, or that opportunity you can exploit that suddenly appeared into view.

If we work with 'resources' then this would evolve into a combat-strategy game rather than remaining a combat-tactical game; weapons make and type would be of little bearing or consequences other than being what you shoot your "resourceless" opponent with to win the combat.

Well, he does have a point. Not even Space Marines get to roll Toughness against plasma in the TT. If you're hit and fail your armour save, that's it.

This is a little off Lynata. In TT, A plasma gun will automatically penetrate SM armor but you must still roll to wound (Which is analogous to rolling for damage.). The one difference is that with Plasma guns being S7, They will automatically remove any model with T3 or less regardless of wounds. This means that for normal humans, Plasma guns are in fact "Instagib" in TT. That being said, a "Wound" in TT does not necessarily mean a fatality. It just means that the figure is removed from play as a casualty. (It's not the same! In campaign lvl games a character may return in a later scenario.)

"Nothing-nothing-nothing-dead" is an accurate summary of every action movie fight ever, whether it's fought with bronze swords, laser swords, slings or death ray cannons. 40k works on Hollywood logic in practically every aspect of the setting, which IRL would collapse under the sheer weight of it's ridiculousness.

I don't recall any action movie where people get shot and just shrug it off as if it was nothing. I think the cliché is that people are dodging such attacks, but this isn't really what we are talking about here.

The cliche is that any attack that isn't a finishing blow only serves to show which character has the upper hand in combat. Depending on how "gritty" the movie's supposed to be, the guy who's "on the ropes" may be parrying and/or dodging desperately, or he may suffer minor cuts and bruises as the fight goes on.

The thing is, it's not "being shot in the naked face" if the final damage says you "only get a nice tan".

The problem you have with the system stems from treating the consecutive steps of the attack resolution as discrete, sequential events where you really should take a step back and look at the whole process holistically. The attack isn't resolved until damage is applied, and the damage is the real gauge of the attack's effectiveness, so that's what you use to translate the attack into the game's narrative layer. To illustrate:

Wrong way:

Player: I shoot him.

GM: Roll to hit.

Player: <rolls> Good! Five degrees of success, hit location - head.

GM: Very well, you land your shot right between his eyes. Roll damage.

Player: <rolls> Crap! Only ten damage total.

GM: Well, subtracting his toughness and armor, and given his current wounds... sorry, you barely hurt him.

Player: What the heck, I shot him right between the eyes! Stupid "skin armor"!

Right way:

Player: I shoot him.

GM: Roll to hit.

Player: <rolls> Good! Five degrees of success, hit location - head.

GM: Okay, roll damage.

Player: <rolls> Crap! Only ten damage total.

GM: Well, subtracting his toughness and armor... You were about to put a bullet right between his eyes, but unfortunately he bobbed his head the moment you pulled the trigger. The shot grazed the skin on his cheek, causing the heretic to wince in pain, but it didn't do that much to stop him.

Player: Curse my luck!

In the first scene, interpreting the rolls step by step leads to immersion-breaking results. In the second scene, withholding description until the right moment leads to entirely believable results.

I actually do that, but I still think the (ranged) combat system is far from perfect for a variety of reasons. The TB soak is only one issue among many, beginning with a higher miss chance the more you fire, which is flat out ridiculous, especially for weaponry such as lasguns, which have no recoil whatsoever. The RoF and action point mechanic from first beta was a pretty solid step in the right direction(individual numbers needed some ironing out, but the main idea was sound). Sadly, ike all good things, it got nixed.

TB itself wouldn't be a problem either, if penetration applied to it as well. You'd have to adjust some values, especially for plasma weaponry.

(And here's where I go on a tangent...)

Actually, plasma weaponry needs a damage increase in general. The current values do not do the fluff description of the weapon justice in the slightest, nor do they justify the inherent risk in using one. The BC plasmapistol was something that actually saw use in our group. It was, literally, the first plasma weapon used as it was in core, in a long history of gaming.

You know what we did to the DH1 plasma pistols?

We sold them. They were trash. The DH2 ones? Same story. Sell for throne gelt, pl0x.

Lynata and I discussed this at length (along with others) on another thread. If you don't like TB being damage soak ignore it! When I've done it I found it fixed a lot of the issues you're talking about. Un. Toughness would still count but the felling trait cures that!

Warhammer 40k is a game, whether in it's original incarnation as a tabletop wargame or in the spinoff roleplaying game. The rules of these games are literally the only way we can gauge the effectiveness of different weapons. Neither of those rules make plasma weapons "instagib people". This is something you just pulled out of your ass, which puts a damper on your idea that people should understand and accept it.

Well, he does have a point. Not even Space Marines get to roll Toughness against plasma in the TT. If you're hit and fail your armour save, that's it.

Though I want to point out that it's entirely okay to wish for a bit of survivability even when faced with plasma weaponry, as I'm in the same camp. I'd still like to see an immediate effect, however, which represents this weapon's terrible strength and reputation. Being shot in the naked face and only getting a nice tan isn't very cinematic at all, imo.

The thing is, it's not "being shot in the naked face" if the final damage says you "only get a nice tan".

The problem you have with the system stems from treating the consecutive steps of the attack resolution as discrete, sequential events where you really should take a step back and look at the whole process holistically. The attack isn't resolved until damage is applied, and the damage is the real gauge of the attack's effectiveness, so that's what you use to translate the attack into the game's narrative layer. To illustrate:

Wrong way:

Player: I shoot him.

GM: Roll to hit.

Player: <rolls> Good! Five degrees of success, hit location - head.

GM: Very well, you land your shot right between his eyes. Roll damage.

Player: <rolls> Crap! Only ten damage total.

GM: Well, subtracting his toughness and armor, and given his current wounds... sorry, you barely hurt him.

Player: What the heck, I shot him right between the eyes! Stupid "skin armor"!

Right way:

Player: I shoot him.

GM: Roll to hit.

Player: <rolls> Good! Five degrees of success, hit location - head.

GM: Okay, roll damage.

Player: <rolls> Crap! Only ten damage total.

GM: Well, subtracting his toughness and armor... You were about to put a bullet right between his eyes, but unfortunately he bobbed his head the moment you pulled the trigger. The shot grazed the skin on his cheek, causing the heretic to wince in pain, but it didn't do that much to stop him.

Player: Curse my luck!

In the first scene, interpreting the rolls step by step leads to immersion-breaking results. In the second scene, withholding description until the right moment leads to entirely believable results.

I think you are grossly misunderstanding the problem. Nobody has a problem with characters laughing at autogun shots. Being grazed by a low-caliber bullet won't break the player's willing suspension of disbelief, since it is an okay-ish thing, justified by the Hollywood logic of the setting. Now, surviving a glancing hit from a plasma bolt, a fusion beam, an anti-tank missile or another it-gonna-kill-ya weapon is just simply a much different situation. Like, how would you "right way" a dead-on plasma cannon shot that only caused a meager 13 points of damage, barely depleting the target's Wounds pool?