Okay, here's one me and my group just stumbled across. Our Assault Marine just tripped over a rock (bad roll of a 97 on jumping from a cliff). He fell about 4 metres, we roughly estimated and we then consulted the falling damage section of the Deathwatch Book. Now... is it just us, or is there something mildly askew about that section.

Firstly, just watch a video entitled 'fall' on youtube, which is about 18 seconds long. It shows a group of young guys jumping roughly the distance that we've got going on here. Now, all of these guys walked away, most of them chuckling. So they can do it.

Now, the rules, and I quote: "To work out damage from falling, simply roll 1D10+1 for ever metre the character fell." Also: "Armour has no effect on falling damage." So... a bolter does 2D10+5, and a 2 metre fall does 2D10+2? I tell you what, I'll go fall 2 metres right now and survive it.

Yep. Did it. Didn't quite feel like a bolter shell.

Now, our Assault Marine fell 4 metres, rolled up 38 damage. Now, that's a big number (another bad roll, turns out Jon isn't so lucky), but that means that after falling 4 metres, which that youtube video shows that a bunch of teenagers can do... reduces Space Marines to paste? Don't mean to sound stupid, but are we missing something completely obvious? Because that just seems... WRONG.

Does anyone know if this has been corrected or if I'm just being stupid?

Read the rules again. It says 1d10+1 for every meter, so in your example the damage roll would be1d10+4 damage.

Okay, I just did read the rules again, but I'm not sure I can agree. Basically, if that was the case, it should be written "1D10, +1 for ever metre", not "1D10+1 for ever metre". It comes down to grammer, basically.

Don't get me wrong, I WAY prefer the version you've just said, but actually reading the rules again doesn't clear up anything. We did about 9 times already. So basically... the book is poorly worded? Is that it?

I'm not trying to pick an arguement or anything, but this isn't the first badly-worded rules choice we've found in this book. But that ruled (essentially 1D10+4 for 4 metres), is that official as far as you know? I'd love it if it were, but I just can't actually see that in the rulebook.

I really shouldn't complain about the book's grammer when my spelling is that atrocious, but in my defence it's 2:30am. Sorry.

METER. (!)

I would say 1d10 then +1 per meter also I have not found it in errata specified, but a d10+1 per meter would seem extreme. Now on some planets with alot of gravity this might be the case, but the standard "earth" type probably not.

Re-read the Errata and it is listed there more specific on the +1 , not 1d10+1.

Xan_Shaw said:

Yes, as Nimon said, the Eratta updated the falling damage from the ridiculous 1d10+1/meter to a more reasonable 1d10, +1 per meter fallen (so 1d10+1 for one meter, 1d10+4 for four meters).

Dark Heresy caps their falling damage out at 25 meters (with a 25m+ notation, not that the table just runs out of room) meaning that after 25 meteres you're assumed to be at terminal velocity and can no longer accelerate and so wouldn't take additinoal damage. I use this same theory in DW myself (though the DH table is slighly less deadly, I prefer the DW one because it's more straightforward).

Also, FWIW, if your Assault Marine had been equipped with a Jump Pack, you could've offered to let him make a Pilot (Personal) check to see if he glided to a safe landing, as the description of jump pack says you can fall safely from 'any height.'

Cool, thanks guys! A whole misplaced comma could have sorted that out...