I just read the newest errata regarding the toxic weapon quality.

Toughness bonus now soaks toxic damage ?

Why is that ?!?!

So Toughness is used double here ? As a saving throw AND as soak ?

This makes it almost useless, as in ost cases this means only 1-2 damage more on average.

Especially weapons that rely on toxic, as the needle weapons, are screwed (they even are mediocre without the soak).

Or do I oversee something ?

I must check this out, because I hadn't notice.

And if it's the case, it will stay 1D10 flat damage.

As devs I'd rather consider to make the toxic level count more. E.g. giving additional damage for DoF on the toughness test or something like that.

Looking at past lines, toxic was never soaked by TB.

I think the Person who did the errata just really screwed up this time

I am fine with it being soaked by Toughness, because I've nearly killed players with it previously. I mean, it ignores armor, and assuming an average Toughness of 30 it has a 60% chance of doing damage. On top of the delivery method, it has been used to great effect by my players as well.

I'd agree if toxic was just the icing on the damage cake.

But given that most weapons that use it, also heavily rely on it, makes them useless very quickly.

Also given the fact, that it is explicitely not soaked in the former lines, makes me rather think that this is an error.

Given an average Character Toughness of 35, Toxic (1) would only work in 75% of all cases.

Meaning the average 5,5 damage from toxic is just 5,5*0,75 = rounded 4

If you subtract the 3 TB...thats 1 damage on average. Great.

Tell me in this circumstances, why a needle pistol is of any more threat than my bare fist in this case ?

AVerage Target with Toughness 35 and Armour 3 wouldnt take damage by the 1d10 needler at all.

Even if it would take damage (maybe with Mighty shot Talent or a called shot to an unarmoured spot), the additional average damage from ist toxic(5) would be about 2.

The assassin would have been better of with a chairs leg, instead of the Very Rare (!) Needle Pistol.

Oh yes, it is silent, I forgot. So it silently does nothing.

If toxic Needs a Change, ist rather a buff instead of a nerf.

Well, fists are 1d5-3+SB. So, if you have an average of 30 Strength, you do 1d5 instead of 1d10. If you can't see the difference, that isn't on the authors.

You're also missing the other benefit of Needle weapons; the Accurate tag. It effectively gives you 4d10 damage. Also, Needle weapons, if that is the example, are Toxic (5).

First: the fist was sarcasm. Take a wooden stick with 1d10 instead --> same problem

Second: average 30 is too low imo. Even a starting char has 31,5 on average, without any increases of his start-XP.

It is probably more realistic to take values around 40 for an acolyte thats no total beginner and has a certain consideration for combat.

Third: I was talking about the Needle Pistol. Pistol weapons with accurate have no increased damage. Even if you take a needle rifle, why wouldnt you be better of with a longlas or sniper rifle. Both are easier to get, are more likely to kill your target and can be fitted with a silencer.

Toxic (5) is almost the same as Toxic (2) regarding damage output. The average difference of damage output is maybe 1-2, as most targets dont have 50 Toughness anyway.

30 isn't too low. This is about the average target, not shooting fellow Acolytes (which are above average). Check out what the various mooks have; there's lots of below 30s mixed in there. If you go by point-buy, your Acolyte who evenly distributes their points for an 'average' stat-build comes out at three 35s and the rest at 30. On top of that, not everyone has a consideration for combat. Best not to assume 40, especially for Toughness.

Huh. I didn't actually notice Accurate specifies the Basic tag for the extra damage. Well, I'm immediately house-ruling it to apply in my game. In regards to the Needle Pistol, you're absolutely correct. As far as the Long-las goes though, you can't put a Silencer on las-weapons. The Sniper Rifle always had the option for enhanced munitions anyways, which can be very nice if chosen properly. The Needle Rifle is better if you want to toss the dice a bit on how much damage you deal; you could roll a 10, which is a +7 damage if they have Toughness 3. That is higher than the Sniper Rifle's or Long-las' damage.

My point on the Toxic (5) was that the chances of any mundane being resisting it is pretty slim. I've got a Tech-Priest backup who has a decent chance, but that's because he's got more Augments than your average armored vehicle and Toughness 60.

Toxic is not needed against an mook, so I'd rather consider an average PC or average elite enemy a target that makes sense to consider. And here, a TB of 4 is nothing uncommon.

The sniper rifle has 4 more damage in General (and 3 Pen, but lets even take the target is unarmoured - which it usually isnt). In the case it is unarmed, you can take Dumdum bullets (or even if ist armour is less than 4) easily (still easier to get than amunition for a needle rifle). So thats another +2 damage.

6 more damage for sure VS 6 damage as a Maximum toxic Output ? With the high Chance for no damage at all (40% you dont get over the TB to create the Basic damage on the first Hand - and thats for an unarmoured target).

You can talk around that as much as you like, but I insist that the toxic errata in fact is an error (read the OW text for example that states that TB is NOT subtracted).

This thread and a few others made me realize - I never once looked at the errata. =O

Is it even necessary to change direction?

My GM chose to just ignore the FAQ's ruling on toxic. I agree its probably too harsh a nerf but I'm also of the opinion that as written toxic can often feel a bit too strong since the toughness test penalties tend to be between -20 to -50 which is generally more severe than they were in 1st ed.

My opinion is not that it is too strong, but too random.

I'd tie the damage to the DoF on the Toughness test, and not 1D10. In that way, there is also a better scaling for stronger Toxins.

My opinion is not that it is too strong, but too random.

I'd tie the damage to the DoF on the Toughness test, and not 1D10. In that way, there is also a better scaling for stronger Toxins.

I like your idea and I'm gonna use it in my campaign.

I wonder, has anybody ever used Toxin rules from the DH1 GM Screen booklet?

I wonder, has anybody ever used Toxin rules from the DH1 GM Screen booklet?

I had totally forgot those rules. They're nice if the PC's wants to take someone alive by using a paralytic poison.

I haven't seen any errata newer that July 2015... where is a newer one printed?

I'd tie the damage to the DoF on the Toughness test, and not 1D10. In that way, there is also a better scaling for stronger Toxins.

Let me see if I understand you correctly, an NPC who fails the Toughness test by 2 Degrees, vs a Toxic (3) weapon (which, by all accounts would be a very strong poison) would take 6 points of damage?

If so, I absolutely love it. But what would happen if she/he succeeded?

As we are wont to say, that nothing happens, is boring.

If I would take this approach, 2DoF would mean 2 damage.

But with an average Toughness of 40, a toxic (3) effect would be rolled against 10, which means on an average throw of 50, you'd face 5 DoF --> 5 damage. Toxic (5) in this case would create 7 damage, Toxic (0) only 2 damage.

It would be 1 less roll and the damage would be tied in a better way to the toxic level.