Yeah, Influence is a bit tricky as it doesn't really function like any of the other characteristics.

I'm at the office atm, do any of the other modules include Influence as a bonus, for example the Highborn?

Personally, I'd just add Toughness instead, to represent the massive amount of physical exercise they went through during their daily drills -- but that is, again, based on my interpretation of the Schola, and I've already outlined my version of the Homeworld stats on a previous page.

So I'd say it's fine if you think that the character's past should have a notable influence (hah!) on the people they interact with. DH2 seems to support a more openly acting Inquisition, anyways.

[edit] Thanks to the internet, it looks as if the Highborn indeed gets a bonus to Influence, so the precedence is provided!

I don't think lasguns are supposed to correspond to modern day weapons. As per codex fluff, they literally blow chunks out of your body or the armour you wear, which is much more powerful than a 21st century assault rifle, let alone a musket.

In movies and some books, modern weapons does exactly that. In police reports it is also the case. And we're not in 40k.

But if you go by comparisons, musket In DH 2 are 1D10+2. And they are described as being acting on the same principles than our own blackpowder weapon of the time.

Stub pistol/revolver/autogun do 1D10+3.

Do you suggest that a blackpower weapon is equivalent of a modern day weapon in fire power since either our modern weapon are equivalent of 40k's or they are equivalent of black powder weapons?

Since there are swords, black powder weapons and differing levels of technology from worlds to worlds in the imperium, I think it safe to assume that our modern weapons corresponds very well to those described in 40k (at least, for heavy stubber, autocanon, stub revolver, shotgun and such).

Also, even elephants have weak spots. As a species, we have been hunting them long before we invented black powder.

But you must touch them, otherwise the elephant will just get away with the wound you inflicted. That's way we designed weapon to do that. What you says is the same between using a bolter and a lasgun against a skitarri. You can kill him (it?) with both, but one of those is a lot better at doing the job. The "lucky" hit (weaknesses you speak of) are represented in my opinion by rightheous fury and talents like mighty shot (or traits like accurate).

So if weapons are such equalizers, why bother inventing boltgun. Or even inventing rocket launchers?

Because there are a lot of differing targets needing adapted weapons and ammo.

Do you suggest that a blackpower weapon is equivalent of a modern day weapon in fire power since either our modern weapon are equivalent of 40k's or they are equivalent of black powder weapons?

No -- here, you're actually touching upon a different but related topic: that weapon portrayal in this game is flawed the higher you go. Plasma guns are 1d10+7, for a range of 8-17 damage compared to your musket's 3-12. Comparing the averages, a plasma gun's raw damage is a whopping ~50% better than a musket.

The reason for this skewed portrayal is likely the game "cheating" on behalf of the players, to prevent them from being instagibbed from weapons that would actually be as powerful as their description suggests. Unless you believe that plasma weapons, too, are overrated.

The musket was quite likely also an afterthought to the game, and the designers had difficulty finding its niche. After all, even a simple wooden staff already seems to be more painful (1d10 +SB ) than a bite-size metal ball getting lodged in your flesh. (and yes, that means a wooden staff does half as much damage as a plasma projectile)

If Dark Heresy would aim to model reality (or the fluff) more closely, the musket should do more damage. Autoguns and lasguns should do even more damage. And plasma guns certainly should do a whole lot more damage. And the characters' TB would be far from as effective as it is by RAW.

Coincidentally, this is also part of the reason why the designers were forced to give Marine guns in Deathwatch a buff: the original stats were specifically designed to spare human PCs, and thus were entirely unsuitable for fighting CSM.

Since there are swords, black powder weapons and differing levels of technology from worlds to worlds in the imperium, I think it safe to assume that our modern weapons corresponds very well to those described in 40k (at least, for heavy stubber, autocanon, stub revolver, shotgun and such).

On some worlds, perhaps. My understanding is that 40k's ballistic weapons could use more powerful propellant and heavier projectiles for a much bigger kinetic punch, but I admit this is mere gut-feeling based on this being (sort of) a sci-fi setting.

... and on these guns being able to punch through powered armour.

We can try to approach the issue from the other side, too : perhaps it's less that the guns are underrated, and more that daemonhide and armour are overrated? After all, why should daemons be so tough? The folks over at the Warhammer Fantasy RPG don't seem to have that much trouble fighting them with muskets either.

But you must touch them, otherwise the elephant will just get away with the wound you inflicted. That's way we designed weapon to do that.

Touch? It is my understanding that elephants (and mammoths) were hunted using throwing spears and bows, because getting close would get you killed.

So if weapons are such equalizers, why bother inventing boltgun. Or even inventing rocket launchers?

Because there are a lot of differing targets needing adapted weapons and ammo.

No, not just because you need a specific gun for every job. That is a factor as well, but more one concerning specialists (which are still far outnumbered by the common infantryman). Most often, mankind has built better guns simply for being ... better. Delivering a bigger punch, or more bullets in the same time, or being easier to carry without sacrificing efficiency, or being more accurate.

Because one thing has been true for centuries: the enemy most often faced by a soldier with a gun is another soldier with a gun. So giving your guy a "gun +1" helps. And that's the reason the Space Marines were issued boltguns -- not because they were specially designed to fight enemies the Emperor did not even know existed before launching his Great Crusade.

No -- here, you're actually touching upon a different but related topic: that weapon portrayal in this game is flawed the higher you go. Plasma guns are 1d10+7, for a range of 8-17 damage compared to your musket's 3-12. Comparing the averages, a plasma gun's raw damage is a whopping ~50% better than a musket.

Plasma Gun have the mode that add +1D10 to their damage, which is, in my opinion, what you see on the table top. Yope, it's not the 3D10+8 of the autocanon, but is a lot stronger than what you describe.

If Dark Heresy would aim to model reality (or the fluff) more closely, the musket should do more damage. Autoguns and lasguns should do even more damage. And plasma guns certainly should do a whole lot more damage. And the characters' TB would be far from as effective as it is by RAW.

Why should the musket does more damage? In reality, musket weren't especially efficient at killing people. It wounded them, and then, they died of sickness and such things.

I do think that a hit from a sword is a lot stronger than the musket, or at least, it does a lot more damage to flesh (breaking the bone, slicing the muscles, severing important blood vaissels, etc.), while the musket punch a little hole in the guy in front of you, if you touch him.

On some worlds, perhaps. My understanding is that 40k's ballistic weapons could use more powerful propellant and heavier projectiles for a much bigger kinetic punch, but I admit this is mere gut-feeling based on this being (sort of) a sci-fi setting.

On many worlds. The imperial guard codex of some ancient edition even mentionned that a World gave bolt-action rifle that were primitive in design and firepower, but they compensated for their accuracy, which made them useful to the guard when they weren't able to receive stock from the Munitorium.

40k is indeed a sci-fi setting, where you see swords, axes, black-powder weapons and crossbows. I don't see why what represents a classic Solid Projectiles weapon should be different than what it is. I can see it for some specialised weapon (like vox-legi shotgun and such), but otherwise, in my opinion, autogun and such represents the vast array from the Ak-47 to the M-16 to Armageddon Pattern Autogun and such.

Touch? It is my understanding that elephants (and mammoths) were hunted using throwing spears and bows, because getting close would get you killed.

I agree, but they were getting killed sometimes, and they were shooting a lot of stuff on those, because they had poorly designed weapon to get the job done. So sometimes a hit to the heart would drop the mammoth/elephant (if they really chased them, but that's another debate), but it was a lot harder than having a specifically designed weapon.

I can use a .22 caliber with pressurised air to kill a man. I must just hit him straight on the temple at short range and he'll died.

Or I can use a Glock and shoot him wherever I want in the face and, unless I'm very unlucky, I'll drop him.

.22 pressurised air gun weren't made to kill people. As much as stone and wooden sticks weren't made to kill elephants. It worked "well" with lesser creatures such as wolves, human and such, but an elephant is a tank, and killing a tank with a frag grenade is a hard job indeed. Doable, but hard.

The Elephant Gun will just punch through its side and, unless the shooter is unlucky, the projectile will just get throught something important and cause severe trauma/death to the elephant, while wooden spears were just going to scratch its flesh and maybe, if lucky, find way through its bones and through an important organ.

And that's the reason the Space Marines were issued boltguns -- not because they were specially designed to fight enemies the Emperor did not even know existed before launching his Great Crusade.

What the Emperor knew is subject of an other interesting debate, but I think the Emperor was mainly wise enough to know there would be things a lot harder to kill in the cosmos that just men and basts, and needed guns that were going to do just that for his elite super soldiers, otherwise the guys he sent would be torn to shreds even if they have great armours, genetics and training.

We can try to approach the issue from the other side, too : perhaps it's less that the guns are underrated, and more that daemonhide and armour are overrated? After all, why should daemons be so tough? The folks over at the Warhammer Fantasy RPG don't seem to have that much trouble fighting them with muskets either.

The 40k fluff states clearly that daemons can't be stopped by normal weapons.

For warhammer fantasy, it's another setting, and we could use the same argument as you posted earlier about cheating on the "player's side", or in this case, about this universe's side. Having daemons that needs modern or superior weapons to kill while all they have are swords and muskets would be making this kind of threat unbeatable (I would be fine with it, but not the players of the game).

Plasma Gun have the mode that add +1D10 to their damage, which is, in my opinion, what you see on the table top. Yope, it's not the 3D10+8 of the autocanon, but is a lot stronger than what you describe.

This mode was not in Dark Heresy from the beginning but added later, perhaps because of this very criticism. Then again, by the same token you could argue that the lasgun's higher power setting is what people are supposed to see on the TT?

Why should the musket does more damage? In reality, musket weren't especially efficient at killing people. It wounded them, and then, they died of sickness and such things.

I do think that a hit from a sword is a lot stronger than the musket, or at least, it does a lot more damage to flesh (breaking the bone, slicing the muscles, severing important blood vaissels, etc.), while the musket punch a little hole in the guy in front of you, if you touch him.

You really think it's okay that a staff is more damaging than a musket?

I'm fine if we can agree that all weapons should have more consequence, though. That was, after all, my main point here.

On a sidenote, musket balls were pretty good at breaking bones, too. It's why limb amputations were so common back then.

On many worlds. The imperial guard codex of some ancient edition even mentionned that a World gave bolt-action rifle that were primitive in design and firepower, but they compensated for their accuracy, which made them useful to the guard when they weren't able to receive stock from the Munitorium.

40k is indeed a sci-fi setting, where you see swords, axes, black-powder weapons and crossbows. I don't see why what represents a classic Solid Projectiles weapon should be different than what it is. I can see it for some specialised weapon (like vox-legi shotgun and such), but otherwise, in my opinion, autogun and such represents the vast array from the Ak-47 to the M-16 to Armageddon Pattern Autogun and such.

I have every single Imperial Guard codex and I don't think that I've ever seen that line. Not that it would change much about the argument, though -- of course they'd just take the next best thing if they can't get their hands on the standard issue lasgun. What I've actually seen in the codex was a mention of regiments sometimes going into battle even with nothing but spears and bows simply because they didn't get their shipment of modern arms in time!

But like I said, we could also talk about just daemons and armour not being as tough as a lot of people think, if you really believe the weapons aren't that different from modern day equivalents. Given the other technology in the setting, and that the setting does not actually seem to have even a single example for a 21st century equivalent of our real world - it's either Conan, knights or cyberpunk - I still don't really agree with the assessment, but it's not that important to the argument.

I can use a .22 caliber with pressurised air to kill a man. I must just hit him straight on the temple at short range and he'll died.

Or I can use a Glock and shoot him wherever I want in the face and, unless I'm very unlucky, I'll drop him.

So what's the problem with the laspistol and the daemon, then? Seems to be the same principle.

What the Emperor knew is subject of an other interesting debate, but I think the Emperor was mainly wise enough to know there would be things a lot harder to kill in the cosmos that just men and basts, and needed guns that were going to do just that for his elite super soldiers, otherwise the guys he sent would be torn to shreds even if they have great armours, genetics and training.

So he gave them "guns +1", like I said.

That is a misconception. The fluff states that daemons cannot be destroyed by normal weapons. But their physical manifestations in the real world can certainly be "disrupted" sufficiently to send them back into the Warp.

Then again, by the same token you could argue that the lasgun's higher power setting is what people are supposed to see on the TT?

No, because full power lasgun becomes unreliable and the normal use of the lasgun is described as being very stable and usable.

You really think it's okay that a staff is more damaging than a musket?

Depends on what is considered a staff. A real combat staff should. It would not only break bones, but just crush the skull or whatever part it is used to hit. Musket do a hole. If I hit you hard on the leg, your leg won't work anytime soon. If I don't hit you at the right place with the musket, you'll continue to run. The same can be said about a modern day weapon, but ammo are even more designed than before to mutilate OR kill (or both).

I don't say that the straight + S bonus is alright, but there is a clear distinction between the damage done by a sword and by a 9mm pistol. And if a sword in the hands of a normal person is as strong as a stub revolver in DH, then yes, I think the stub revolver is pretty close to the sword.

Melee weapons has the disadvantage of needing more training, needing to get close, needeing more stamina and such things, which guns do not have (and that's why guns get range bonus, are used at distance and such)

I'm fine if we can agree that all weapons should have more consequence, though. That was, after all, my main point here.

I actually think that most of the weapons are actually fine. Maybe I would add a little more penetration to a majority of weapons (something like AP1 for guns like stub pistols or autogun, to give a real difference between musket and those), and think that bows/crossbows aren't very strong compared to real stuff, but otherwise, the rules seems okay to me.

That is a misconception. The fluff states that daemons cannot be destroyed by normal weapons. But their physical manifestations in the real world can certainly be "disrupted" sufficiently to send them back into the Warp.

How can a greater daemon wipe a world, then. Nurgle I can see, but Khorne?

Because they've got an unnatural resilience. They are not from this world and do not respect laws of our universe. Otherwise, they're just some beasties from another world and there is no difference between them and any xenos. In my opinion, that's sad lorewise.

No, because full power lasgun becomes unreliable and the normal use of the lasgun is described as being very stable and usable.

Point taken, though I still consider it somewhat underhanded to simply assume a special setting is supposed to represent a standard.

It may also be worth noting that this special setting for plasma weapons did not exist in DH1 core, or GW's own d100 Inquisitor game (where lasguns also don't become unreliable if set to a higher power setting).

Depends on what is considered a staff. A real combat staff should. It would not only break bones, but just crush the skull or whatever part it is used to hit. Musket do a hole. If I hit you hard on the leg, your leg won't work anytime soon. If I don't hit you at the right place with the musket, you'll continue to run. The same can be said about a modern day weapon, but ammo are even more designed than before to mutilate OR kill (or both).

I am rather confident that any place that gets knocked on by a staff would fare worse if hit by a musket! One only has to consider the difference in kinetic energy applied to the relevant bodypart.

"A musket ball didn't cut its way into you. It smashed through skin, bone, and muscle - and sometimes would then bounce around even more inside your body (doing even greater damage). If you were fortunate, the musket ball would pass clean through you - a simple in-and-out flesh wound, perhaps damaging some nerves and muscle tissue. But if it impacted bone, you were in trouble."

-- http://americanfounding.blogspot.ie/2008/05/getting-shot-by-musket.html

"It is generally thought that at up to a range of 30 yards the ball would go straight through a man. At a greater range it would still be enough to cause very significant injuries. At this time, any serious wound would be almost certainly prove to be fatal. In his excellent book about the Civil War, Trevor Royle describes the death of a soldier called Gabriel Ludlow who was wounded in the battle of Marston Moor: 'his belly broken and bowels torn, his hip bone broken, all the shivers and the bullet lodged in it'"

-- https://tudorstuff.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/the-musket-use-in-battle-a-dreadful-injury/

I actually think that most of the weapons are actually fine. Maybe I would add a little more penetration to a majority of weapons (something like AP1 for guns like stub pistols or autogun, to give a real difference between musket and those), and think that bows/crossbows aren't very strong compared to real stuff, but otherwise, the rules seems okay to me.

Fine from a gaming perspective that has the player characters act like the Terminator in a shoot-out with the LAPD, perhaps. But certainly far from realistic, and also far from the gritty nature of the tabletop battles.

There's way too many factors twisting the gameplay in favour of prolonged encounters.

• Low difference between weapon stats even when comparing medieval to high-tech (see above)
• Naked skin (TB) being more efficient than armour at stopping a bullet, and cumulative with each other
• Considerable hitpoint "buffer" before characters even start to suffer from injury effects

If you want a somewhat more realistic approach, check out Games Workshop's Inquisitor. It has its own flaws, but the injury system is something Dark Heresy could take a page from. I've advertised a partial inclusion into DH in the past.

Matter of preferences, though -- in short, how deadly would you want your game to be?

How can a greater daemon wipe a world, then. Nurgle I can see, but Khorne?

Because they've got an unnatural resilience. They are not from this world and do not respect laws of our universe. Otherwise, they're just some beasties from another world and there is no difference between them and any xenos. In my opinion, that's sad lorewise.

I don't see the problem, personally. Whenever daemons actually "wipe a world" rather than just infiltrate it, they don't do so individually, but as part of a massive daemon incursion that follows a rift in the veil, leaking the Warp directly into the streets. This means that you won't have to deal with one daemon but many more, in addition to doomsday cultists.

Also, I consider that the terror a daemon instils in most of the humans it'd face a weapon at least as dangerous (or useful) as its physical properties.

That being said, it also depends on the individual daemon: This is not represented in most TT profiles for sake of streamlining (an exception being individual, named daemon characters), but in Inquisitor, daemons can have a selection of properties that can modify their resilience. There is one perk, for example, that makes them count double Toughness on all hits except to ones to the head and the chest -- or another where any injury from mundane weapons is reduced to a single level (silver and blessed weapons, on the other hand, get a bonus to their normal damage).

You should be lucky! Very, very few warriors in the Imperium are equipped with silver or holy weapons. If daemons were truly invincible against anything other than that, they'd wipe the floor even with Space Marines 95% of the time they'd meet.

"Luckily for mankind, most rifts in the barrier between realms are temporary and, upon closure, the Warp energies dissipate quickly. This means Daemonic incursions are typically short lived, and the foul armies are forced back to the Immaterium.

Besides cutting off the unnatural energies around them, there are other methods to drive Daemons back into the Warp. An unremitting blast of psychic will or physically slaying them will do the job, but only for a while. The destruction of a Daemon's physical form will banish it from realspace, but will not end its existence. The malefic presence will gradually reform again in the Warp, nursing its hatred for long decades or even centuries."

-- 6E TT core rulebook, p221

It also makes sense, though. By physically manifesting in the real world, daemons suddenly become subject to at least some of the real world's laws of reality (whilst bending others, just like any psyker). In short: what you can touch, you can harm. They are formed "just" from flesh, after all, not rock. And apparently, they can even bleed.

Do note that IRL, muskets are about as deadly as modern firearms. They're less accurate, less reliable, and much slower to load, but a musket ball is just as likely to kill an unarmoured person as a modern bullet. In some cases, it's more likely to kill, due to the musket ball fragmenting and causing lead poisoning in a wound to a non-vital area.

Also, you can beat Daemons to death with your bare hands in Dark Heresy. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's entirely doable.

But, yeah, it's best to use blessed weapons. A staff, for some reason, does more damage than a gun.

The house rule I'm going to try out today is:

You can't dodge modern firearms. You can Dodge in melee (and can dodge guns fired in melee). You can Dodge Primitive ranged weapons. You can't Dodge bullets - unless you have Unnatural Agility or some sort of Prescience.

This makes guns a lot more dangerous than sticks, but doesn't remove the usefulness of melee.

I've always justified dodging ranged attack by effectively not dodging the shot, but rather dodging the enemy's aim. You see someone pointing a gun at you, so you jump, increasing the likelihood of them missing you as they pull the trigger. It'd be better represented by a penalty to the attacker's BS (much like with Running), but the turn-based nature of the game makes this the only option.

It's still iffy in terms of realism, but pretty low on the game's list of crimes against the rules of physics. Without Dodge, I fear ranged weapons would get a little too effective ... but I could see the Dodge perhaps getting an inherent -10 penalty or something?

Fine from a gaming perspective that has the player characters act like the Terminator in a shoot-out with the LAPD, perhaps. But certainly far from realistic, and also far from the gritty nature of the tabletop battles.

People tends to die a lot more in DH1 and DH2 than on the table top. A Space Marine isn't even able of reliably kill a simple guardsman on the tabletop. Let alone guardsman vs guardsman.

though I still consider it somewhat underhanded to simply assume a special setting is supposed to represent a standard.

Agreed, but the option is there, and I sit better fitting. I never saw plasma weaponry as being able to shoot at burst/full auto like a lasgun or a bolter and saw it has having a slow rate of fire but being fairly destructive. The maximal power on the plasma represents this well, in my opinion.

I am rather confident that any place that gets knocked on by a staff would fare worse if hit by a musket! One only has to consider the difference in kinetic energy applied to the relevant bodypart.

As I said, it's fairly dependant on how you use the staff and how strong are your hits. The difference in melee and shooting is that the bullet will always hit at the same speed and will indeed concentrate its power on a miniscule place of the body, making more damaging in its area of effect. On the other hand, the staff can touch with less strenght (depending on the fighter), but when used properly, will damage a huge zone, which could also mean the end of using the said zone.

I don't like debating on the staff, because even there, I think it is too strong in the game, while I think the sword is alright.

• Naked skin (TB) being more efficient than armour at stopping a bullet, and cumulative with each other

We've already had this debate, so I won't start it over, even if it's a good one!

• Low difference between weapon stats even when comparing medieval to high-tech (see above)

But it comes in line with what you said earlier; a bullet to the head is a bullet to the head. I don't see why a lasgun hit in the face would have to be much more damaging against a sword thrust in the face.

I don't see damages in DH only as their impact in the laws of physics, but at how a living creature react to its impact.

A gun will create a hole in a arm, a sword will cut it down with a good strike.

That being said, it also depends on the individual daemon: This is not represented in most TT profiles for sake of streamlining (an exception being individual, named daemon characters), but in Inquisitor, daemons can have a selection of properties that can modify their resilience. There is one perk, for example, that makes them count double Toughness on all hits except to ones to the head and the chest -- or another where any injury from mundane weapons is reduced to a single level (silver and blessed weapons, on the other hand, get a bonus to their normal damage).

If we take tabletop comparison, daemons have got an invulnerable save, which represents fairly, in my opinion, the fact that they aren't easy to wound with normal weaponry. A lasgun shot to a daemonette or a battlecanon hit will be stopped nearly as easily.

Also, I consider that the terror a daemon instils in most of the humans it'd face a weapon at least as dangerous (or useful) as its physical properties.

Indeed, corruption is another one.

But if daemons can be easily killed with lasgun, then why bother blessing weapons or creating psycho-active materials?

daemons suddenly become subject to at least some of the real world's laws of reality (whilst bending others, just like any psyker).

Psykers that can protect themselves with force shield, stop bullet and reverse gravity.

At this level, yeah, I agree, daemons are affected by laws of "our universe", but not very much. And then, if they can walk into space without freezing, if they can walk from shadows to shadows, they could theoritically not care about bullets (or, at least, not much).

I consider the damage soak of the daemons in game very fitting.

Do note that IRL, muskets are about as deadly as modern firearms. They're less accurate, less reliable, and much slower to load, but a musket ball is just as likely to kill an unarmoured person as a modern bullet. In some cases, it's more likely to kill, due to the musket ball fragmenting and causing lead poisoning in a wound to a non-vital area.

They lost acceleration because of the way the barrel was made, the round bullet didn't flee through the air as efficiently than a modern day bullet. Any of these considerations reduced the speed (and then the strenght of impact) of said weapon. But as you said, on an unarmoured target, there is not much difference than a modern day gun.

You can't dodge modern firearms.

So you wouldn't do nothing if someone pointed a gun at you?

I would simply make the character needs to succeed on an awareness test to realise that one of those guy in front of him turned his gun to shoot.

People tends to die a lot more in DH1 and DH2 than on the table top. A Space Marine isn't even able of reliably kill a simple guardsman on the tabletop. Let alone guardsman vs guardsman.

I don't quite agree.. A Marine has a 60% chance to "instakill" a Guardsman, a Guardsman gets 50%.

Of course there is an element of abstraction, as most warriors in the TT only have 1 Wound to represent their entire health, so even attacks that don't drop them might be seen as wounding them to prepare for a later attack to kill them instantaneously, whereas other times it's not a kill at all and they are merely wounded and out of the fight.

TT turns also are a bit longer and can represent multiple attacks, whereas in the RPG it would be several turns -- but then again, some of the "narratively existing" attacks in a TT turn will miss by default, and in the end you simply roll for delivering the weapon's damage profile as statted in the book.

Either way, looking at the RPG in comparison, you have Guardsmen have at least 7 points of resilience (3 TB + 4 AP), which gives more than a 50% chance to negate a lasgun attack. And that is before we consider that this character also has a number of hitpoints as well as critical injury levels allowing them to remain in the fight even once you actually manage to deal "penetrating" damage.

Post-Deathwatch Marine bolters of course have a better chance to kill a Guardsman in the RPG, but that is just because of their cheat buff rather than how the system was initially set up and contradicts how boltguns work in the codex fluff.

As I said, it's fairly dependant on how you use the staff and how strong are your hits. The difference in melee and shooting is that the bullet will always hit at the same speed and will indeed concentrate its power on a miniscule place of the body, making more damaging in its area of effect. On the other hand, the staff can touch with less strenght (depending on the fighter), but when used properly, will damage a huge zone, which could also mean the end of using the said zone.

The principle can be applied to both weapons -- the melee attack is bound to deliver a large amount of "blunt damage", yet the projectile is bound to penetrate and go straight through your body, potentially hitting critical organs or major arteries.

I realise you don't like debating the staff, but the same can be applied to swords, too. Ultimately, people can survive either sword blows as well as gunshots, it all depends on where they are hit. I feel like this would already be represented in the dice roll, however, and here the span is somewhat suspicious. If a 1 on the d10 is a glancing blow and a 10 is a perfect hit, the 10 should do more than just subtract 8-9 Wounds after accounting for TB, assuming a normal human with zero armour. There should be a guaranteed consequence for the target in the form of a critical injury, like Inquisitor does.

But as I said, matter of preferences!

But it comes in line with what you said earlier; a bullet to the head is a bullet to the head. I don't see why a lasgun hit in the face would have to be much more damaging against a sword thrust in the face.

I don't see damages in DH only as their impact in the laws of physics, but at how a living creature react to its impact.

Admittedly, that was more in reference to stuff like plasma guns. They shoot what amounts to miniature suns , but what do you get when you're hit by one in this RPG?

A nice tan.

With lasguns, it's more that I think they should be better at punching through armour than a musket, given how fluff mentions them effectively causing the surface to explode via flash-expansion, although an argument could be made that they should be more devastating against flesh as well, seeing how they basically cause your fluids to boil.

The fluff section of the 6E TT rulebook contained a rather nasty description of lasgun wounds. Let's just say it's not as simple as a "flesh wound" you may get by being shot with an autogun.

If we take tabletop comparison, daemons have got an invulnerable save, which represents fairly, in my opinion, the fact that they aren't easy to wound with normal weaponry. A lasgun shot to a daemonette or a battlecanon hit will be stopped nearly as easily.

Yes, perhaps that's it, a fine but important difference -- but either way, both these weapons are capable of "killing" them.

If the setting didn't have Necrons and Tau, I'd actually hypothesise that the weapons aren't very important, just that the shooter believes they are, and the daemon's "wounds" being a psychic response to the shooter's willpower.

But if daemons can be easily killed with lasgun, then why bother blessing weapons or creating psycho-active materials?

Oh, note that I didn't say "easily", just that there is a chance. Better weapons giving better chances is all the reason you really need.

And that's before we consider that the Imperium may just do a lot of stuff out of a sense of tradition. It could be argued that the Space Marines as well as the Battle Sisters are a horrible waste of resources that should better go to the Imperial Guard, but nobody would dare think about abolishing them. Thus, weapons are blessed primarily because people are superstitious.

That they actually do have an effect on daemons is a nice bonus -- but see above, this might even be connected to the wielder's beliefs. Daemons are a manifestation of the Warp, and so are susceptible to even an average human's thoughts much as the rest of the Immaterium ("Deny the Witch").

I would simply make the character needs to succeed on an awareness test to realise that one of those guy in front of him turned his gun to shoot.

I think the game even already specifies that you need to be aware of an attack in order to Dodge or Parry it?

Of course there is an element of abstraction, as most warriors in the TT only have 1 Wound to represent their entire health, so even attacks that don't drop them might be seen as wounding them to prepare for a later attack to kill them instantaneously, whereas other times it's not a kill at all and they are merely wounded and out of the fight.

The roleplaying game also has this level of abastraction. TB2 human which received 3 damage loses 1 wounds because he is weak and crying after so little damage, while a normal human at TB3 receive 3 damages and also and bruise but shrug it off. I never saw, nor narrated TB as flesh armour but as "the hit isn't sound enough to justify loss of wounds"

If a 1 on the d10 is a glancing blow and a 10 is a perfect hit, the 10 should do more than just subtract 8-9 Wounds after accounting for TB, assuming a normal human with zero armour. There should be a guaranteed consequence for the target in the form of a critical injury, like Inquisitor does.

This, I agree completely. That's why I changed the critical damage system; players get critical damage equal to the difference between their TB and wounds they suffered (after TB and armour), so when a character with TB4 receive a lasgun hit making him lose 5 wounds, he suffers 1 critical damage.

This made combat grittier, and I chopped off the critical damages in negatives. This way, there are less 8-9 results on critical damage, but the characters suffers damage faster and dies faster. Righteous fury is added to the critical damage already created by the weapon.

The roleplaying game also has this level of abastraction. TB2 human which received 3 damage loses 1 wounds because he is weak and crying after so little damage, while a normal human at TB3 receive 3 damages and also and bruise but shrug it off. I never saw, nor narrated TB as flesh armour but as "the hit isn't sound enough to justify loss of wounds"

The problem I see is that "shrugging it off" is already represented by Wounds, given that nothing actually happens until you go into Criticals. That, and I don't think it should be possible to "shrug off" even a glancing hit from, say, a lasgun, as it'd still flash-fry all the liquids in the impact area, causing significant swelling and associated discomfort.

Not saying you're wrong, mind you. I guess this bit just comes down to interpretation and preferences.

This, I agree completely. That's why I changed the critical damage system; players get critical damage equal to the difference between their TB and wounds they suffered (after TB and armour), so when a character with TB4 receive a lasgun hit making him lose 5 wounds, he suffers 1 critical damage.

This made combat grittier, and I chopped off the critical damages in negatives. This way, there are less 8-9 results on critical damage, but the characters suffers damage faster and dies faster. Righteous fury is added to the critical damage already created by the weapon.

This sounds interesting -- almost like a hybrid between Dark Heresy and Inquisitor RAW. I'd still say that this makes Wounds even more redundant than I felt they already were (it feels almost like a parallel health track), but if it works for your group, that's cool. All paths lead to Holy Terra, as they say.

The problem I see is that "shrugging it off" is already represented by Wounds, given that nothing actually happens until you go into Criticals. That, and I don't think it should be possible to "shrug off" even a glancing hit from, say, a lasgun, as it'd still flash-fry all the liquids in the impact area, causing significant swelling and associated discomfort.

I interpret those depending on the weapon. For example, when a bolt touch, even lightly, your arm will be ripped off. So I consider very light damage/0 damage as the bolt slight scratching the side of the the flack jacket, or its tip touching a leather strap of the soldiers webbing, and exploding a few centimetres behind the soldier, making him flinch with a close blast. Same for lasgun; I see it as an energy blast going a few inches from the soldier, but the heat of the discharge still has a little burn on the close flesh.

In my opinion, it represents a lot better the "I've got zero wounds from your lasgun" than "I soaked it". Narratively, it makes for cooler scene as the soldier is John Maclaning himself through bullets, explosions, and such, while real good hits will just drop him fast.

This sounds interesting -- almost like a hybrid between Dark Heresy and Inquisitor RAW. I'd still say that this makes Wounds even more redundant than I felt they already were (it feels almost like a parallel health track), but if it works for your group, that's cool. All paths lead to Holy Terra, as they say.

I've used it since DH1; the only problem was the rarity of high critical damage, which the new righteous fury arranged pretty nicely (now, I add the 1D5 critical damage to the already existing critical damage, so if a shot already does 3 critical damage, and you rolled a righteous fury of 5 on the D5, then the target suffers 8 critical damage, which is bad for his health). Last game, I saw a character die even if he still had 3 wounds left.

I interpret those depending on the weapon. For example, when a bolt touch, even lightly, your arm will be ripped off. So I consider very light damage/0 damage as the bolt slight scratching the side of the the flack jacket, or its tip touching a leather strap of the soldiers webbing, and exploding a few centimetres behind the soldier, making him flinch with a close blast. Same for lasgun; I see it as an energy blast going a few inches from the soldier, but the heat of the discharge still has a little burn on the close flesh.

In my opinion, it represents a lot better the "I've got zero wounds from your lasgun" than "I soaked it". Narratively, it makes for cooler scene as the soldier is John Maclaning himself through bullets, explosions, and such, while real good hits will just drop him fast.

It basically comes down to re-interpreting the rules. A shot that has hit mechanically is now described as a near-miss, even for cases where it would have caused injury had there only been a single point of TB or AP less on the impact zone.

It's even stranger if you consider that the damage is rolled independently from the attack's accuracy/success, so in theory, even a dice roll of 1 on the attack could end up being narrated as a miss. That's not just abstraction anymore, it's "narrative revisionism".

I can see this do its job, of course - as you say, it's better than portraying the soak as-is - but I don't quite understand why you wouldn't modify the mechanics to be in line with the narration, rather than basically "playing against the system".

Then again, it's certainly less work, and if it works ...

I can see this do its job, of course - as you say, it's better than portraying the soak as-is - but I don't quite understand why you wouldn't modify the mechanics to be in line with the narration, rather than basically "playing against the system".

I'm not sure what you mean as going against the system: low damage (or even any damage without critical value) are just "flesh wounds", while no damage are just impact that weren't on the right spot to do anything else than bruises and scratches, which can still be terrible for very weak cratures.

Well, you just mentioned near-misses. The system, however, is too obviously constructed to define it as soak, which you (rightly, imho) dislike. And like I said, I'd consider it strange that a perfect "bullseye" attack gets transformed into a near-miss just because it was stopped by the combination of armour and Toughness.

This is not what happens by RAW, and is a deliberate misrepresentation of the role that the target's armour and Toughness have played in lessening the impact of the attack. In the worst case scenario, you end up with flimsy "bullet sponges" who miraculously get hit way more often by the same weapon and the same enemy just because they're not as well protected, whereas the bulky tank with cyber-enhancements and heavy plate seems to hog all the luck as the bullets and las bolts miss him by mere inches all the time.

Narratively, it's not as much of a problem as I make it sound with the above example, as it'd be an extreme case. But in either way, the end result of your combat resolution is utterly different from what the dice suggest "actually" happens.

This is not what happens by RAW, and is a deliberate misrepresentation of the role that the target's armour and Toughness have played in lessening the impact of the attack. In the worst case scenario, you end up with flimsy "bullet sponges" who miraculously get hit way more often by the same weapon and the same enemy just because they're not as well protected, whereas the bulky tank with cyber-enhancements and heavy plate seems to hog all the luck as the bullets and las bolts miss him by mere inches all the time.

It depends on the occasion. The mega cyber-tank with carapace armour, I can see him receiving lasbolt in the chest without penetrating and making him lose wounds, because he's tough, while a non augmented human receinvg a hit on a flack jacket will double over with pain (and lose-3-4 wounds).

My near-misses are for low toughness/armour characters receiving no or few damages (which explains why the guy isn't wounded). This happens more to non-soaky character than to those that have what justify a high soak.

If the guy has armour, I give the justification on the armour "The bullet touched one plate of your armour and broke it, but the impact was near-completely assumed by your armour. It still bruises you and give pain, you lose 2 wounds"

While a 4 damage on a guy without armour (and making lose only 0-1 wounds), would be described as a near miss.

"The lasbolt fly so close to you that it gives you first degree burns, you lose 1 wound" (TB3)

While I would see the same description to a TB 4 guy

"The lasbolt fly so close to you that it gives you first degree burns, but you're a tough guy and you'll cry about it later, when the job is done " (TB4).

I don't know if it is clearer. You can ask me examples, I'll give them to you if it hels visualizing the thing.

Nah, it is clear -- this "selective abstraction/revisionism" just isn't my cup of tea. Just a matter of preferences. I've always favoured systems that do not distinguish between characters but rather treat everyone the same, according to their stats.

It's why I'm so critical of a variety of "special exceptions" these RPGs make.