***

> Howdy.
>
> I have a couple of questions about critical hits in Rogue Trader starship combat.
>
> 1. In order to get a crit you need "a number of successes equal to the weapon's Crit rating" (page 220).
>
> What does "successes" mean here? Is it the same as "degrees of success"? Does simply succeeding on a Test mean 0 "successes"?
>
> 2. Am I right that crits have nothing to do with shields or armor? You're as likely to score a crit due to "successes" on a grand cruiser as on a beaten up cargo hauler?
>
> Thanks in advance.

Hi ***,

Crits need a number of Degrees of Success. Simply succeeding earns you no Degrees of Success. Sorry for the confusion there.

Also, Crits have nothing to do with shields or armour, and everything to do with how good a shot you are and the design of the weapon itself. Some weapons are more accurate and more "pinpoint" in their damage, allowing for a greater chance of crits.

Hope this helps!

Sam

Sam Stewart
RPG Designer
Fantasy Flight Games

***

The second answer was as expected (it just seemed odd to me), but the first might be of interest to some here.

Iku Rex said:

That's how the DoS rules have always been, by RAW at least.

MILLANDSON said:

The rules say nothing about DoS. Crits depend on "successes". As explained and quoted in my question...

If you succeed on a Test, how many successes do you have? For crits, the answer is 0 (as explained by Stewart above).

(Elsewhere it's still unclear. In the mass combat rules [page 292], does succeeding on a test add a success to the group's total number of successes ? The mind scan [page 164] and reprogram [page 166] powers depend on how many successes you get, and start with describing the result of 1 success . So does merely succeeding mean you've failed ? The disengage action in starship combat [page 215] lets you escape if you get more successes than the enemy. So, if you succeed , and the enemy fails , does that mean you don't manage to disengage because you have no successes ?)

I was talking about how Degrees of Success work. The rules have always stated that a Degree of Success was gained from each full 10 below your stat you rolled, it's never said that you got a DoS from just getting a normal success (rolling equal to or up to 9 below your stat).

Therefore, a weapon with a Crit of 3 would require 3DoS. I'm not sure where the confusion occurs

MILLANDSON said:

Yes. That's how Degrees of Success work. Now read the rule I quoted from page 220. Or the main crit rule on page 119. It says nothing about Degrees of Success . It says "successes". "Degrees of success" has a defined meaning. "Successes" don't.

While the language used is imprecise, the intent seems self-evident to me. Whenever talking about "successes" (plural), or a numbered amount of successes (including "One" success). the rules are in fact talking about degrees of success, as opposed to what I term a "simple" success.

Regarding your specific examples,

• Mass combat: I would port over the Exploration Challenge rules -- a simple success modifies the difficulty of the next roll, but only DoS are counted towards the final result.
• Mind Scan: A poor implementation of the rules, or a mistaken understanding of the success system, IMO. Assuming the writer intended the rule to function as written (working on my assumption that "successes" (pl) always refers to DoS), the rule should have been written such that the power was one degree more difficult, with the One Succes option being listed as "Success, no DoS", Two Sucesses being listed as "One DoS" etc...
• Reprogram: If you treat successes on an opposed check as a net result (winners successes minus losers successes), this can function basically as written. A simple success versus failure results in one net success. If simply reading the psyker's success, this rule suffers the same problems as Mind Scan.
• Disengage: This is slightly sloppy wording, and should simply refer to the Opposed Test rules, with the clarification that the disengaging ship needs to win against all opponents. IE, simple success beats any type of failure, One DoS beats simple success or any failure, etc... This is essentially what the rule says, just not as precisely as it should.

The psychic examples are indeed problematic, because there is, unintuitiviely, no benefit for simple success, and this leads one to wonder if the author intended this or if he misunderstood/forgot how the success system worked. The remainder of the rules tend to give specific results for simple successes (eg, you hit the target), with improved results dependant on DoS, which makes the intent quite clear in my mind. In any situation where successes are being accumulated (such as the Mass Combat example above), one can generally refer to the Exploration Challenge rules for guidance, as they are clearly the system these subsystems are drawing upon (see Interaction Challenges in ItS).

Ideally, all references to "successes" should have been replaced with DoS, but, again, it seems quite clear to me that this is the intended meaning. Your official feedback regarding crits supports this position.

SableWyvern said:

I don't agree that it's even remotely self-evident that succeeding on a test does not give you 1 success. "Successes" is not a defined game term. It doesn't show up once in the "Playing the Game" chapter when the core mechanics are laid out. It's just English. As opposed to defined game terms, the intended meaning depends on context every time. In fact, since Degrees of Success is a defined game term, using a different word sort of implies that the game designer doesn't mean Degrees of Success.

SableWyvern said:

(I think "Standard Success" is the proper/common term, although "Basic Success" is used once in the Starships chapter with regards to Focused Augury.)

I don't agree that it's even remotely self-evident that succeeding on a test does not give you 1 success. "Successes" is not a defined game term. It doesn't show up once in the "Playing the Game" chapter when the core mechanics are laid out. It's just English. As opposed to defined game terms, the intended meaning depends on context every time. In fact, since Degrees of Success is a defined game term, using a different word sort of implies that the game designer doesn't mean Degrees of Success.

If the rules indicate that you need to count successes, or that something happens with 2 successes, or so on, and you want to know what that means, the appropriate question to ask is, "Where in the rules does it mention numbered values for success?" The answer is the Degrees of Success rule.You have stated yourself that the rules never mention a value for a basic success without DoS, so why insist on looking for such a value? The rules don't provide one, and giving it a value is not necessary to make sense of the remainder of the rules.

I agree that the wording is sloppy, but we have the advantage of context, which provides an internally consistent and useful answer. An answer, I might add, that aligns perfectly with the one you received from FFG and included in your original post.

In fact, since Degrees of Success is a defined game term, using a different word sort of implies that the game designer doesn't mean Degrees of Success

Except that many rules become unclear and confusing if you insist on working with this assumption, whereas they simply work if you presume that the number of successes is determined by the Degree of Success. As you have made clear, if the rules don't mean DoS when talking about successes, then what they do mean cannot possibly be deciphered from the text itself, which seems like a willfully self-defeating position to take.

It certainly never crossed my mind that the authors they might mean anything else, or that anyone would be confused by the wording once they understood the DoS rule.

Edit: Stupid non-standard, non-functional forum code.

"It certainly never crossed my mind that the authors they might mean anything else, or that anyone would be confused by the wording once they understood the DoS rule."

Same here. I can only see someone getting confused if they purposefully decide that "successes" can't possibly refer to DoS.

Thirded. Considering there's no other mechanic that assigns a numeric value to succesful tests, I fail to see what else could have been meant as well. Sure, it's sloppy, but it's not exactly a game-breaking bug that as written defies attempts to uncover what was intended with this rule.

SableWyvern said:

"Internally cosnistent and useful?"

You've come up with a general rule that means that a "success" (as defined by the rules) is sometimes a failure, succeding on multiple Tests can give you "0 successes" and IYO requires more errata for the Core Rulebook (for the Disengage action). I think it's far more likely that the use of "successes" is just sloppy langauge, and not some agreed upon secret code used by all the game designers working for FFG.

Let me throw in another example. In Lure of the Expanse the Explorers have to make a pilot Test to see how well they manage to land a shuttle. There is a table with "Number of Successes" and "Result". There are 5 results. One result for "None". You insist that it is self-evident (no less) that succeding on the Test has the same outcome as failing it. A success on the test is 0 successes. I, on the other hand, think that seems really odd.

SableWyvern said:

They simply work?! Let's have a look at your reply to the examples I offered. For mass combat you avoided the issue by offering a house rule. For psyker powers you talk about "poor implementation of the rules, or a mistaken understanding of the success system". For the disengage action you're basically saying it needs errata. You have a rather odd idea of what constitutes "simply working".

If you feel constrained to run your game using only the letter of the rules and refusing to consider the context a rule exists in, then, yes, the game will not function properly.

As I have stated, the wording is sloppy. When writing up my own cheat sheets and player handouts, it immediately occurred to me that it is best to use more precise language, so I agree that you have discovered an example of less than ideal phrasing and a minor failure of editorial oversight. Except for two psychic powers however, everyone else in this thread has been capable of identifying the rules as intended without difficulty or angst.

I will give you that Table 1-6 in LotE is missing a standard success entry. However, Tables 1-2, 1-3 1-4, 1-5 and 2-1 all do have such an entry.

Intriguingly, table 1-6 does head the succcess column "Sucesses", rather than "Degrees of Success" as found on all the correct tables. Nevertheless, I consider it unlikely this one table is meant to be used in totally different fashion to all the others and count successes using a method defined nowhere in the rules. More likely, the author simply failed to consider a standard success when writing the table, and this was missed during editing. If this error existed but was spotted in the other tables, it would explain why they use the more precise column header.

Yet again, I will concede that the rules are not written with the precision they should be, but I will continue to maintain that it is far from arduous to determine the intent. The mass combat rules do lack a result for standard success, but does not take brilliant inspiration to look to the rule subsystem they're based on for guidance; similarly the disengage rule, which clearly defines itself as an opposed test, making it entirely logical to check the opposed test rules for clarification.

Edit: To be fair, I do see how a reasonable person could be confused by the way the success rule is presented. However, I can only consider it completely disingenous to reject the obvious and simple intent once it is pointed out.

SableWyvern said:

There's no "letter of the rules" here. If the game stops functioning properly it's because of your interpretation of the (universal) intent. Which suggest to me that your interpretation is not that good.

SableWyvern said:

The reason I asked in the first place was that the question (with regards to crits) came up once again on this board recently . I started a thread about it a few months ago and out of the two people who replied, both ended up leaning towards the "a success counts as a success" interpretation. Certain people only started saying it was obvious after Stewart clarified that particular usage of "successes". Funny that...

SableWyvern said:

So, the table is different, but you can't imagine how this could possibly signify that it is intended to be different. Nor do you see any problem whatsoever with a table offering 5 different outcomes and yet not distinguishing between success and failure.

What was that you were saying about context?

SableWyvern said:

It doesn't say anywhere that the mass combat rules (as opposed to, say, the Stern Chase rules) are "based on" Exploration Challenges. I agree that treating them as similar to an Exploration Challenge would makes sense, but not that it's clear that any other interopretation doesn't make sense.

The disengage rule isn't unclear, based on your claim that the intent is self-evidently and always that "successes" means DoS . It says quite clearly that you need "successes" to disengage. Yes, it's an opposed check, just like, say, Mind Scan. But if all you have is a success, you don't have a success and you've failed. Obvious and simple, and it would be disingenuous to think otherwise. Right?

SableWyvern said:

Which is funny, because I can only consider it completely disingenuous to pretend that an interpretation that says that a success is not a success and a success is a failure is "obvious and simple".

So, the table is different, but you can't imagine how this could possibly signify that it is intended to be different. Nor do you see any problem whatsoever with a table offering 5 different outcomes and yet not distinguishing between success and failure.

If you are seriously going to argue that:

The author intends this table to be utilised in conjunction with a rule which, as you have repeatedly pointed out, does not actually exist,

is a more reasonable interpretation than:

The table is improperly formatted and is meant to work just like the four other tables that also show the scaled effects of a test,

Then, I am at a loss, and will gladly leave you to your search for this mythical, unwritten rule. Enjoy.

SableWyvern said:

I am arguing that it is possible and even likely that the table is different because it was meant to work differently. A logical interpretation, supported by the context of the rules. If you can't see how this is a possibility, I leave you with your "self-evident" universally applied unwritten rule. Enjoy.

(You understand that your interpretation calls for the table to be "utilised in conjunction with a rule which ... does not actually exist", right?)

I'm genuinely confused now. What unwritten rule am I referencing? It is my supposition that the table is designed to be used with the DoS rule as written, but is suffering from a formatting error. This assumption does not necessitate the introduction of any new rules.

Similarly, it is my supposition that the disengagement rules are a poorly written rendition of the Opposed Check rules, and should be replaced with the actual Opposed Check rules.

And, in the same fashion, the ground combat rules are a brief and incomplete rendition of the Exploration Challenge rules, and should be treated like Exploration Challenges.

The alternative, which you are suggesting, is the introduction of entirely new rules to explain how success counting functions in each of those subsystems (and, even with a properly defined success counting system, the disengage rule will still, IMO, be less functional than the actual opposed check rule).

Perhaps you have focused too strongly on my early comment that, "The rules just work". This, on reflection, is an overly generous statement that stemmed from what I saw as easy an obvious fixes to sloppy writing. You are correct in pointing out that, no, they don't "just work", and do require players to analyse the systems as presented, compare them to other systems that are properly explained, and made judgement calls about intent. Where we differ is in the conclusions we draw after that analysis.

What I can't fathom is why you insist that there must be a different method for counting successes than the DoS rule, even though the rules certainly present no such system, and your insistence that multiple rules have been written with the assumption that the players will use a success counting system other than the one system the rules actually give us.

In short, if the table is meant to work differently, what thought process would have led to deciding that this one table -- whose function is entirely equivalent to several others that reference DoS -- should function differently, and, having made that specific decision to require a new and unnecessary system when the DoS system would already do the job, why did the author not even bother to explain his new, alternative method of counting successes? Answering those questions requires far more complicated reasoning than presuming the table is in error.

SableWyvern said:

From your first post in the thread: Whenever talking about "successes" (plural), or a numbered amount of successes (including "One" success). the rules are in fact talking about degrees of success, as opposed to what I term a "simple" success.

SableWyvern said:

Your supposition is founded on your unwritten universal and "self-evident" rule about "successes". Without that rule it is not clear at all. (Or if it is, it is clear that the table is supposed to be different, with a separate result for failure.)

My assumption is that the meaning of the the word "successes" is not clear. Can you specify what "new rule" that assumption necessitates?

SableWyvern said:

I think you have lost track of who's arguing what in this thread. I'm saying certain rules are unclear, amongst those the crit rule (pre-clarification). I have never said that the word "successes" MUST be used differently throughout the rules, bur rather that it could be.

The rules do not give us a "success counting system" in the way you claim. Five degrees of success is still only one success by RAW. The alternative interpretation doesn't work per RAW either of course, but it is less absurd. "Successes" = DoS leaves us with a situation where a successes is not a success, and a success is sometimes a failure.

The fact is, many different people are involved in making a FFG RPG book. Given that "successes" is not a defined game term, and there are good reasons not to use it synonymously with DoS, it is naive to think that they have all gotten together and agreed on a certain (inaccurate) usage, or all just happen mean the same thing when they use the word.

SableWyvern said:

If the table is meant to work the same, what thought process would have led to deciding that it should be different? If the author was familiar with the DoS system, why did he use a different term on that particular table? (Note that this is the first table introducing a result that is clearly a failure, not a form of success.) Why would he use the word "successes" if he intended for a success not to be a success? Why would he create a table with five different outcomes and yet intentionally give the same result for success and failure?

Answering those questions requires far more complicated reasoning than presuming the author slipped up and used an inaccurate word, but meant to give one outcome for failure, one for standard success, one for one degree of success, and so on.