Hmmm...I don't know. There's something to be said for taking an "underdog" weapon (stub revolver, laspistol, etc.) and still being a complete badass with it, certainly, but I don't know that you need a reward for it (i.e. weapon specific talents or the like). Sure you can take a more powerful gun and be better, but who's going to have the better reputation? The guy who takes down all comers with a poxy laspistol or the guy that "needs" a bolter? Introducing a "reward" for less powerful equipment runs counter to the whole "I'm amazing 'cos I only use crappy gear and still win" reputation thing and also limits or pigeon-holes characters into only using the weapon they've specialised in.

But the point is that the bad@$$ with crappy equipment usually won't win. The mechanics of combat in the game are set up to strongly favor the better weapon; laspistol-armed 'expert gunslinger' Kal Jericho will almost certainly get blown away by a 'green rookie' armed with a dumdum-loaded autogun...

I think there are narrative benefits to choosing different weapons, though, one of which I've already alluded to in the previous post.

True, but they don't really outweigh the fact that your character dies if they lose a combat, and the system predicates victory in combat largely (primarily?) on having better weapons. Check of proof: how well does the system curtain 'powergaming' now , with those 'narrative benefits' firmly in place? Answer: not at all; the raw system strongly encourages powergaming, and responsibility for curtailing it is fobbed off entirely on the GM, with zero support within the system (okay, I guess I can't say 'zero' since the addition of Subtlety, but still...).

The lesson of D&D is that math bonuses (or fixes, depending on how you look at it) are boring and that narrative control (in D&D, magic) is interesting. To make use of this lesson, a game should have equipment choices that have different narrative impacts, rather than a mathematical tier with clear best and worst choices.

That's an interesting point. I'm all for reducing the math; what are some game systems that follow that approach to equipment (especially weapons)?

But the point is that the bad@$$ with crappy equipment usually won't win. The mechanics of combat in the game are set up to strongly favor the better weapon; laspistol-armed 'expert gunslinger' Kal Jericho will almost certainly get blown away by a 'green rookie' armed with a dumdum-loaded autogun...

I'm not so sure. In a straight up shoot-out, with no cover, etc. yeah, maybe the rookie would blow the veteran away if he managed to get the drop and pin him down. On the other hand, the rookie is having to deal with lack of Talents and low BS, whilst the veteran enjoys all the benefits of Talents and high BS (and other stats). The Vet is hampered by his poor equipment, sure, but he is going to be hitting more often and for more reliable damage. He'd have an easier time of it with better gear, but the point is that he probably could win that gunfight with crappy guns unless the rookie is (somehow) packing all the top notch gear; power armour, power field, etc. that the las-pistol literally cannot deal with. If that's the case, then the Veteran is going to have to find a way to win the fight beyond just the simple shoot-out; knock out a girder that crushes his foe, damage the grill-flooring so the rookie falls to his death below, shoves him off a gantry or whatever...which he is more than capable of doing because he has the experience (read: Talents and Skills) to do so. That's what makes him badass. There should be a noticeable difference between gear and I don't think that introducing Talents to make crappy gear as good as good gear is a way to make the game more fun; as cps pointed out, it's a way to make the game more boring as you struggle to reach equilibrium between characters.

Top-notch gear is a crutch for those who can't do it with panache and style!

The mechanics of combat in the game are set up to strongly favor the better weapon; laspistol-armed 'expert gunslinger' Kal Jericho will almost certainly get blown away by a 'green rookie' armed with a dumdum-loaded autogun...

Jolly P already added that Kal would have a much easier time hitting as well as dodging the rookie, but in addition, dum-dums cannot be used with autoguns. Did you mean manstoppers, perhaps? Better choice, anyways, as dum-dums would double the target's AP.

Your fears also make it sound as if this was a clash of preferences in regards to narration style -- from the looks of it, you'd like to see more Hollywood badassery, but are fine with sacrificing realism. This isn't everyone's cup of tea, though I suppose we all have different thresholds and it's not strictly A vs B, but rather lots of in-betweens. I'm very much a fan of badassery, myself, after all. As long as it is believable.

Only if you have spent your last Fate Point. Don't ever do it.

Of course there is little support from the system -- not zero; you already mentioned Subtlety, but weapons having limited ammunition could easily be construed as a further mechanical factor. But that is simply because in any game it is largely left to the GM to flesh out the setting and augment the RAW.

It would be impossible to put anything and everything into mechanics, and the advantage of pen&paper RPGs over computer games is that you have a human GM who can improvise and shape the world according to the background, always able to provide a suitable reaction to any action taken by the player. Such as, for example, a player dual-wielding las pistols trying to recharge their power packs from the electrical socket in the room they rented.

This game system by-and-large tries to put as much into rules as possible, though. I agree with Adeptus-B in that the system is built around the idea that everyone should be powergaming stats and better gear. The developers put a lot of overpowered mechanical options for the players in the book, why not put something in to encourage actual roleplaying?

This game system by-and-large tries to put as much into rules as possible, though. I agree with Adeptus-B in that the system is built around the idea that everyone should be powergaming stats and better gear. The developers put a lot of overpowered mechanical options for the players in the book, why not put something in to encourage actual roleplaying?

I disagree that the system is designed to be powergamed. Yes, there are powerful options, but that doesn't mean you are obliged to take them. If anything, the game discourages broad-spectrum usage of any particular abilities, whether they be Talents, Skills, Equipment or whatever. Mechanically this is represented by random starting ability scores, for a start. The variety of Homeworlds, Backgrounds and Roles, which is being expanded in every new release, makes for a very wide variety of styles of character, from starting Skills, Talents and abilities, to Aptitudes which influence the way in which the character will develop. If that's not encouraging diversity, I'm not sure what is. Sure Talent X, Y or Z might be totally boss for X, Y or Z character, but if your character is W then it might be totally worthless.

As for including options that encourage "actual roleplaying", as you put it, might I point you in the direction of the likes of the Ferric Lure, Exotic Weapon Training and Peer Talents, the various Lore and Trade Skills and not to mention the entire notion of Subtlety. Yes, they've given over a lot of focus to combat and rightly so; "in the grim darkness of the far future" and all that, but endless war is merely the backdrop upon which the stage is set. The real game is not in the combat, but in the playing; the plot, the characters and the intrigue. Dark Heresy has more in common with Call of Cthulhu than it does with D&D; the rules are there to facilitate the bits that you can't play without them. The meat of this game doesn't need them, so why try to interfere with and limit that by putting rules in the way?

I like to believe that the powergaming stuff is an accident rather than intention, and could be rectified with some more careful balancing. Lore Skills I'd still like to see handled more like Shadowrun, though, in that you get a bunch of them for free to allow greater diversity among the characters, including more opportunities to actually use them. In my opinion, Lore Skills are one of the primary aspects of character identity -- after all, they do represent their background, their history and at times their hobbies.

A character may lose their favourite/signature revolver, but they'll never lose their knowledge of, say, Hive Jarvin Underworld.

The lesson of D&D is that math bonuses (or fixes, depending on how you look at it) are boring and that narrative control (in D&D, magic) is interesting. To make use of this lesson, a game should have equipment choices that have different narrative impacts, rather than a mathematical tier with clear best and worst choices.

That's an interesting point. I'm all for reducing the math; what are some game systems that follow that approach to equipment (especially weapons)?

Off the top of my head, in FATE it doesn't matter what your weapon is, only how good you are at using it (your skills and stunts). Maybe it has an Aspect you can tag for the occasional +2. A game that goes a little less free-flowy is Edge of the Empire - most of the guns are very close to each other in terms of raw damage, but have different special properties you can activate if you roll well, and your skills and talents are a much greater factor in terms of how effective you are than the weapon you're using.

This game system by-and-large tries to put as much into rules as possible, though. I agree with Adeptus-B in that the system is built around the idea that everyone should be powergaming stats and better gear. The developers put a lot of overpowered mechanical options for the players in the book, why not put something in to encourage actual roleplaying?

I disagree that the system is designed to be powergamed. Yes, there are powerful options, but that doesn't mean you are obliged to take them. If anything, the game discourages broad-spectrum usage of any particular abilities, whether they be Talents, Skills, Equipment or whatever. Mechanically this is represented by random starting ability scores, for a start. The variety of Homeworlds, Backgrounds and Roles, which is being expanded in every new release, makes for a very wide variety of styles of character, from starting Skills, Talents and abilities, to Aptitudes which influence the way in which the character will develop. If that's not encouraging diversity, I'm not sure what is. Sure Talent X, Y or Z might be totally boss for X, Y or Z character, but if your character is W then it might be totally worthless.

As for including options that encourage "actual roleplaying", as you put it, might I point you in the direction of the likes of the Ferric Lure, Exotic Weapon Training and Peer Talents, the various Lore and Trade Skills and not to mention the entire notion of Subtlety. Yes, they've given over a lot of focus to combat and rightly so; "in the grim darkness of the far future" and all that, but endless war is merely the backdrop upon which the stage is set. The real game is not in the combat, but in the playing; the plot, the characters and the intrigue. Dark Heresy has more in common with Call of Cthulhu than it does with D&D; the rules are there to facilitate the bits that you can't play without them. The meat of this game doesn't need them, so why try to interfere with and limit that by putting rules in the way?

Characteristic scores can be determined through point-buying, so random stat generation isn't even required in the CRB. I would argue that the game discourages broad-use characters, but encourages taking a handful of skills/talents regardless of who you are playing as. You are absolutely, 100% required to either take Dodge or buff up your TB or you will die. Everyone will probably need Awareness, and most will think about taking Step Aside or True Grit if possible.

Why?

They are so much more valuable than other Talents or Skills that surviving any sort of combat encounter will almost always require them. They are Skills/Talents that are incredibly important even if you are a W character. All those Lore skills aren't going to help if you are dead, after all.

The different Backgrounds and Roles give you Aptitudes, of which some are head and shoulders above the rest in value. If I can get Ballistic Skill from my Role, Finesse from my Background, and Agility from my Homeworld, I am going to be much more versatile than someone who makes their choices based off of a character concept.

The issue is that while you may have campaigns that are combat heavy and lacking in Lore/Interaction encounters, the reverse is far more rare. "In the grim darkness of the far future," after all. Like it or not, the rules are built around combat and predicated on the assumption that's going to be the main focus. Subtlety is added as almost an afterthought, just like the implementation of Trade skills or things that may add flavor to your character.

I've read through the entire Dark Heresy 2.0 Core Rule Book. It strikes me more of a game about kicking down the door and killing the mutant/heretic/xeno than it is one about plot, character, or intrigue. If combat is just the backdrop, why is it given so much more weight in the rules? Why are there more combat talents than noncombat?

I don't like the idea of having rules for every single little thing. It bogs down the game and makes it boring rather than fun. Where I have a bone to pick is with the fact that there are a handful of clearly-powerful Skills/Talents that are practically a necessity for every character, not just ones who want to play a certain way. They may add options, but those options aren't worth much if they are overshadowed.

You are absolutely, 100% required to either take Dodge or buff up your TB or you will die. Everyone will probably need Awareness, and most will think about taking Step Aside or True Grit if possible.

This is simply not true.

Yes, there is a lot of focus on combat and a character that doesn't take these will have a rough time should they get into a fight. There's absolutely zero necessity for any given character to be a combatant, though. Come the fight, some characters can (or should) just hide or run away...the combat characters in the party (if any) are there to protect the non-combatants, after all.

The reason there's a lot of focus on combat rules and not much on anything else is that combat is a scenario that should be adjudicated by rules; players cannot easily roleplay a combat without them. Trying to make rules for conversation and investigation, on the other hand, takes away what's good about those things; i.e. your (the players) ability to socialise and outwit the machinations of the GM. Saying "I roll Bluff" is a poor substitute for actually making a bluff. Saying "I roll Intelligence" is boring compared to sussing out a puzzle or making that leap of judgment yourself. Yes, there's some rules in there so the GM can "give you hints" or to give you a little leeway to play characters that are better conversationalists than you, the player, are, but if you put too many rules in there, I've found those aspects become restricted rather than expanded.

To bring the conversation back around a little; "rule-of-cool" weapon choices don't need a mechanical incentive. You choose to use an underdog weapon like a laspistol because it's an underdog weapon, not because there's some so-called "cool" Talent that makes it better or equal to other, superior, equipment. It's like the bluff check; you can have a rule that says you can be badass with a laspistol, just as there can be a rule that lets you say "I make a bluff check", but it's much more fun to make the laspistol badass yourself (by doing cool things with it like shooting out a girder and such, as I mentioned in an earlier post), just as actually making a bluff is more fun.

[double-post - how do I delete a post?]

The reason there's a lot of focus on combat rules and not much on anything else is that combat is a scenario that should be adjudicated by rules; player cannot easily roleplay a combat without them. Trying to make rules for conversation and investigation, on the other hand, takes away what's good about those things; i.e. your (the players) ability to socialise and outwit the machinations of the GM. Saying "I roll Bluff" is a poor substitute for actually making a bluff. Saying "I roll Intelligence" is boring compared to sussing out a puzzle or making that leap of judgment yourself. Yes, there's some rules in there so the GM can "give you hints" or to give you a little leeway to play characters that are better conversationalists than you, the player, are, but if you put too many rules in there, I've found those aspects become restricted rather than expanded.

It's the same way with investigations. Yes, the players might make an Inquiry check here to canvas an area for information or a Scrutiny check there to determine if a person of interest is being truthful; but by and large, I think it's more fun for the players if they , and not their characters, are the ones actually moving the investigation forward... interviewing suspects, visiting crime scenes, setting up stakeouts, tying clues together, and so on. If you go and try to mechanize the whole process with a bunch of rules and tables and what not... for me that's just taking away what separates an RPG from a board game (not that there's anything wrong with board games).

The issue is that while you may have campaigns that are combat heavy and lacking in Lore/Interaction encounters, the reverse is far more rare. "In the grim darkness of the far future," after all. Like it or not, the rules are built around combat and predicated on the assumption that's going to be the main focus. Subtlety is added as almost an afterthought, just like the implementation of Trade skills or things that may add flavor to your character.

For what it's worth, I'm actually of the opinion that the Subtlety rules are entirely redundant. It would be enough to have this in the hands of the GM, just like it was in DH1 -- for one, because Subtlety doesn't actually do much, and secondly because the GM will have a much easier time reacting to the players' shenanigans than a set of stiff rules.

To adequately judge a group's approach, Subtlety rules would have to be much more complex and designed to factor in a wide variety of variables, from failed Investigation checks, to arms and armour put on public display (possibly with Shadowrun-style concealment ratings and permit levels), to how many times the PCs revealed their true identity (and to whom), to how much trouble they kicked up, modified by a local infiltration level, and resulting in a plethora of reactions from increased resistance to targeted assassinations to enemies going into hiding.

Yes, I'm sure it would be possible to create rules for all that, but it's so much easier to just handwave stuff with GM fiat. Combat on the other hand is comparatively easy to rule. And considering how much time DH spends on combat alone, just think about how thick the book would get if it'd actually expend the same amount of detail on Subtlety and Investigations. You wouldn't end up with one core rulebook, but a triplet of 600-page monsters. Enjoy your game!

That being said, I have to agree about Dodge. In my opinion, it should become a starting Skill simply because it's so important to have. However, subsequent ranks in Dodge should either get a much smaller bonus or become much more prohibitive in terms of XP cost. That way, you could still get your ultra-agile acrobats whilst the other players will expend those XP in Talents and Skills that will cater to their own niche.

And as for TB ... well, I think the Inquisitor approach would nicely deal with that.

Come the fight, some characters can (or should) just hide or run away...the combat characters in the party (if any) are there to protect the non-combatants, after all.

This is the one bit where I cannot agree fully with you. Let's not mislead ourselves -- like the vast majority of RPGs, Dark Heresy is a combat-focused game. As such, it would suck if a portion of the party would be relegated to the role of extras or sidekicks just because they don't go all out on this aspect.

Instead, I like to consider the middle road, where, yes, the combat characters are there to protect the non-combatants, but the latter are still able to defend themselves and help out their comrades. They just ought to stay in the rear and not try anything suicidal. One might say they are relegated to a supporting role, but that's still a lot better than "hiding or running away". There's a reason every single character in this game starts with a weapon.

Plus, with there not being nearly as many non-combat Talents than combat ones, the gap between them shouldn't be so massive, anyways.

RE: Subtlety -

I think the Subtlety rules (such as they are) are mostly there to point out that the whole concept should be a part of the game. As I've mentioned before, Dark Heresy has more in common with investigative games like Call of Cthulhu than it does with the likes of D&D (which are a lot more generic and/or combat focused) and one way in which they've reinforced this is by introducing the whole Subtlety thing. Requisition tests, as opposed to a monetary system, are also part of this reinforcement to an extent.

Whether or not you, as GM, enforce Subtlety strictly or not is your call; they've already done their job simply by existing.

RE: Non-combatants -

The "middle ground" is probably a prudent character choice, I agree, but it's not a necessary one. So long as you are willing to accept the consequences of your character concept, I see no flaw in being a true non-combatant in Dark Heresy and quite a few benefits (i.e. being better at what you want to be good at, instead of diverting a certain amount of "build-time" to surviving combat).

As I've mentioned before, Dark Heresy has more in common with investigative games like Call of Cthulhu than it does with the likes of D&D (which are a lot more generic and/or combat focused) and one way in which they've reinforced this is by introducing the whole Subtlety thing. Requisition tests, as opposed to a monetary system, are also part of this reinforcement to an extent.

Sort of, but to me, it still seems to be that the investigation is the backdrop leading to combat, rather than combat being the backdrop accompanied by investigation. Both should be there and play a role, of course, but to which ratio is up to the individual group. I'd even consider it a feature of the game and the setting that "cloak n daggers" is just as valid as the militant approach, all depending on what the players want.

As for the Requisitioning, I don't think this has anything to do with the focus, though, and is instead simply a better representation of how such a group operates. DH1 had money, after all, whereas Deathwatch - a game unashamedly all about combat - has Requisition as well. It simply isn't very adequate to have traditional D&D style looting play a role when you're playing government operatives. Unless you are in a deep cover mission .. then, ironically, looting might become an important part of your investigation-focused game.

The "middle ground" is probably a prudent character choice, I agree, but it's not a necessary one. So long as you are willing to accept the consequences of your character concept, I see no flaw in being a true non-combatant in Dark Heresy and quite a few benefits (i.e. being better at what you want to be good at, instead of diverting a certain amount of "build-time" to surviving combat).

Then we are of one mind, after all! I certainly agree that if someone wants to avoid combat and can truly enjoy playing such a role, they should not feel pushed into it. I merely wanted to caution against interpreting the intent of the game (if not necessarily the rules, see Black Crusade) as forcing a split of the group into "heroes" and "extras".

Top-notch gear is a crutch for those who can't do it with panache and style!

That should be the way it works, but that isn't what the mechanics of the system support. If superior gear isn't a major factor in your combats, it's in spite of the system rather than because of it.

Your fears also make it sound as if this was a clash of preferences in regards to narration style -- from the looks of it, you'd like to see more Hollywood badassery, but are fine with sacrificing realism. This isn't everyone's cup of tea, though I suppose we all have different thresholds and it's not strictly A vs B, but rather lots of in-betweens. I'm very much a fan of badassery, myself, after all. As long as it is believable.

Not necessarily Hollywood, just 40K fiction, where a bad@$$ with a 'characterful' but statistically non-optimal weapon can usually beat a faceless grunt with a better weapon. And that's not the outcome the system is designed to produce; one 10-point hit is always better than two 5-point hits. I'd just like to be able to make a 'cool' character and have the system support a path for success, rather than have a system that mechanically rewards only MinMaxing and punishes any non-optimized characterfulness.

Is that wishful thinking...?

Off the top of my head, in FATE it doesn't matter what your weapon is, only how good you are at using it (your skills and stunts). Maybe it has an Aspect you can tag for the occasional +2. A game that goes a little less free-flowy is Edge of the Empire - most of the guns are very close to each other in terms of raw damage, but have different special properties you can activate if you roll well, and your skills and talents are a much greater factor in terms of how effective you are than the weapon you're using.

It sounds like the FATE system would definitely not work for 40K, since 'gun porn' is a big part of the setting...

The old Rogue Trader systems have some concrete rules for the time it takes to acquire something and the need to upkeep certain valuable assets. Using these systems for higher-end gear can add roleplay-relevant costs, especially if this serves as a more constant tax on subtlety.

As a player, I like subtlety. If I want to play high-end nonsense, I'd look to Deathwatch, Only War, or Black Crusade. I get really bummed out when my fellow players get uppity about tanks and plasma and power armor and completely blow my chances at catching an enemy off-guard.

Still trying to figure out how to exploit their nonsense to get things done.

That should be the way it works, but that isn't what the mechanics of the system support. If superior gear isn't a major factor in your combats, it's in spite of the system rather than because of it.

Otherwise it wouldn't be superior gear, would it?

Not necessarily Hollywood, just 40K fiction, where a bad@$$ with a 'characterful' but statistically non-optimal weapon can usually beat a faceless grunt with a better weapon.

From my experience, this is only true for those examples of fiction where the "bad@$$" is supported by a hefty bit of Plot Armour, if not outright being a Mary Sue. If we're once again taking Kal Jericho as an example, he usually fights gangers who aren't actually any better equipped than him.

Though even if this were true, your criticism actually touches upon something that I have been saying again and again, too: that weapons in 40k as a setting make for great equalizers, and how poorly this is represented in this game. Take Kal Jericho's laspistols, for example. Technically, it shouldn't matter much whether you're hit by a laspistol or a plasma pistol. Barring heavy armour (the likes of which gangers don't tend to wear), you'd probably be dead or at least incapacitated in both cases, right?

Yet here, all weapons are much weaker than they should be -- or rather, the characters are much tougher, thanks to Hitpoints and TB-Soak. So of course the differences between the various guns are highlighted even more.

If we were to take GW's d100 Inquisitor game, on the other hand, a las pistol (2d6 damage) hitting an unarmoured body section would, on average, do 7 points of damage, whereas a plasma pistol (3d10 damage) would do about double that. With an average Toughness of ~60 for Human characters, that means the las pistol would trigger a Heavy injury, whereas the plasma pistol would trigger a Serious injury (= 1 level above Heavy).

Still a difference, especially if we factor in the plasma pistol's much greater range (up to 30), but -- thanks to having at least some notable effect (even 1 point of damage is a guaranteed injury) -- not as bad as in DH, where every single point of damage can decide over whether or not you're punching through the target's TB Skin Armour or not, and how fast you'd strip away their Wounds shield.

Of course, if the target is actually wearing heavy armour ... sucks to be you. Aim for the head or get a better gun. The bad@$$es usually win by doing the former, not because reality warps around their will and their shot magically manages to punch through the armour as if it were a better weapon.

Because the real bad@$$es don't win by magical immunity to better weapons, or by their gun magically being just as good -- but because they've got superior aim, the agility to not get hit in the first place ... and the brains to outsmart their opponents.

Note how that guy above had a bolter, and how often he got to use it thanks to that little manoeuvre.

Top-notch gear is a crutch for those who can't do it with panache and style!

That should be the way it works, but that isn't what the mechanics of the system support. If superior gear isn't a major factor in your combats, it's in spite of the system rather than because of it.

I'm in absolute disagreement. What about the system says that a highly competent character can't out-shoot a mook who has better gear? There's a whole heap of Talents that make a Veteran better at taking down his foe, regardless of what equipment he has. Not to mention any other benefits from increased Skills and Ability Scores he might have. As I've said before, he'd have an easier time of it with a bolter or plasma pistol, but even with a measly laspistol he's still insanely competent compared to some rookie, even if that rookie has a massive gun.

Superior gear can be a major factor, but it's how experienced the characters are relative to one another that makes more difference, not to mention how creative the player is in reading and using the battlefield and circumstances. I'm not saying that an experienced character isn't better off using superior gear, I'm saying that he can get away with using inferior gear and still be a total badass...and further, that he's more of a badass for doing so! Any mook can tote a Storm Bolter and claim to be totally boss, but it takes a real hombre to claim the same wielding only a Laspistol.

Yeah, if the opponent of a badass can hit just as well, and use the same tricks with the same level of reliability ... what actually makes the guy with the weaker weapon a badass?

I'd rather say he or she was a fool for trying to take on an equally skilled foe with such a weak gun.

Yeah, if the opponent of a badass can hit just as well, and use the same tricks with the same level of reliability ... what actually makes the guy with the weaker weapon a badass?

I'd rather say he or she was a fool for trying to take on an equally skilled foe with such a weak gun.

Well there is only one letter difference between "Fool" and "Cool"...

But then you have weapons that are practically useless because of the way the system works. Knives? You mean thumbtacks that can't push past my skin?

More a fault of the system than the weapon, but yeah.

But then you have weapons that are practically useless because of the way the system works. Knives? You mean thumbtacks that can't push past my skin?

Sure, it only deals 1d5 damage, but Strength Bonus counteracts Toughness Bonus and do you really think a bog-standard Knife should easily be able to penetrate "hard" armours like carapace and feudal plate?

Don't forget that you can replace the result of one damage dice with your DoS, even it's more than the weapon is normally capable of; get 6 or more DoS with a Knife and you deal that much damage (I've not seen any rule to contradict this).

Add in Talents and a skilled knife wielder can easily take out common mooks and even have a shot at taking out someone with boss gear. Add in Fate point abilities and things start looking even better (e.g. the Assassins Sure Kill ).

Let's see here...an Assassin with Deathdealer, Crushing Blow and Hammer Blow could be dealing;

1d5[or DoS]+Strength Bonus+(WSB/2)+DoS [+PB if Crit], Pen: (SB/2)

Even with a mere 45 in his appropriate stats (the minimum WS for Deathdealer) that's looking like;

1d5+4+2+DoS[+4 on Crit]

Let's say he rolls well and get 3 DoS (which is anything between 20-29 on the dice, I think that's reasonable) and decides to replace his damage roll with his DoS too (for arguments sake);

3+4+2+3[+4 on Crit] = 12

Deduct targets TB and Armour (let's say TB:3 for average Mook and AP:5 for Light Carapace)

12-3-(5-2)=6 wounds

Doesn't sound like much, no? But we're talking about a badass Assassin, here. He snuck up on his target and Aimed first. That increases his DoS by 4 (Unaware Target +30 to hit, Half-Action Aim +10). Plug that into the equation for an extra 8 damage. 14 Damage from a single hit after accounting for armour and don't forget to add 4 to any Critical damage. That's enough to one-shot most Troop level NPCs in the Core book and even a few Elites (without spending a Fate point, it'll still do in about half of them). If it doesn't take them out, there's the Concussive (2) from Hammer Blow to deal with and we haven't even begun to delve into multiple attacks...

I'll say it again; it's not the weapon, but the wielder that kills people.

Don't forget that you can replace the result of one damage dice with your DoS, even it's more than the weapon is normally capable of; get 6 or more DoS with a Knife and you deal that much damage (I've not seen any rule to contradict this).

The exact rule:

If the attack inflicts more than one hit or more than one die of damage, the attacker can replace the result on one die of his choice with the degrees of success from the attack roll.

So no, this doesn't work as you describe. The knife only hits once, so you can't substitute anyway, but you replace the die roll with your DoS. A roll of 10 on 1d5 is still 5 damage, not 10.

Additionally, Deathdealer's bonus only applies when you inflict critical damage, at which point the mook is basically dead anyway and this little bonus isn't going to help much.

For all you talk up the importance of talents, it doesn't change the fact that your badass melee assassin would still do far, far better using literally any other melee weapon .

The exact rule:

If the attack inflicts more than one hit or more than one die of damage, the attacker can replace the result on one die of his choice with the degrees of success from the attack roll.

So no, this doesn't work as you describe. The knife only hits once, so you can't substitute anyway, but you replace the die roll with your DoS. A roll of 10 on 1d5 is still 5 damage, not 10.

In my book, at least, the exact rule says;

The attacker can replace the result on a single damage die with the number of degrees of success from his attack roll.

Then it goes on to say what you said. Let's not cherry pick quotes shall we?

I will, however, concede that, due to the specific wording on how to roll 1d5 in the book, your interpretation that 10 DoS would result in 5 damage is correct. Myself (and yes, it would be a houserule), I treat a d5 as a its own die-type, rather than (d10/2).

Additionally, Deathdealer's bonus only applies when you inflict critical damage, at which point the mook is basically dead anyway and this little bonus isn't going to help much.

I'm fairly sure I mentioned this, so I'm not sure what your point is.

For all you talk up the importance of talents, it doesn't change the fact that your badass melee assassin would still do far, far better using literally any other melee weapon

Yeah. So? I'm positive I mentioned this too. I made a point of it. Shall I dull down my last few posts a bit?

"Good equipment is good. Crap equipment is crap. Good character is gooder with good stuff. Good character is still good despite crap stuff. Crap character is gooder, but still crap, even with good stuff."

I'm disputing the claim that superior equipment is the be-all and end-all of combat. I'm supporting the notion that there should be discrepancies between good and poor equipment and that even with poor equipment, an experienced character is still an effective one without the need for weapon-specific Talents to "buff" the poorer equipment.