Demonskunk said:

Woah, woah woah, no Swift Attack against Hordes? WTF? It's brilliant!

50 WS, that means at least 50% chance of one hit, 30% of two, 10% of three. Two goes at attacks. That means you've got a 1% chance of hitting the horde 6 times, 6% of hitting it 5 times, 19% of hitting it four times, 40% of hitting it three times, 55% of hitting it twice and 50% of hitting it once. That's excellent! Also, most hordes that you face are large, giving you bonuses to hit, increasing almost all these chances by about 20-30%. If your GM is any good, then the horde is a large collection of otherwise weak enemies - their weapon skill is terrible so they can't hit you. They can't dodge (they're a crowd) or parry (ditto), and their AP and TB are going to be low enough that each chainsword blow is going to kite them. Yes, flamers will do more, but that's because they're designed against hordes.

Also, if the bad guy sucks at melee WHY AREN'T YOU KILLING HIM THERE?

our assault marine also complained he sucked against hordes for some reason and everyone else was like "grow up and think about it" and next round we all took note of how he did around 10+ magnitude damage, while everyone else was down on 2-5. He changed his mind after that.

As for every other situation, i personally find the assault marine to be the best for most situations. Their biggest disadvantage is expensive ballistic skill, but considering almost everything gives you serious bonuses to hit, I think that's not such a big deal. At least not for a long time.

Against ranged enemies, they can close quickly and end up in melee, making most such enemies useless.

Against melee enemies, they average out, but are still better than their fellows. Also with their higher weapon skill they can parry easier, make counter attacks and so on.

If you have fleshrender and use a chainsword you get 3d10 and choose the best, giving you a righteous fury 30% of the time. It's easy to do damage. MUCH damage.

I'm playing a Tactical marine and well, I do good and have fun, but if it's someone that should complain from the start I think it's them. Maybe it's because I choose Ultramarine as well, but I don't regret it, just notice that others have more fun options. I just have more awesome coolness. Right?

AlphariusOmegon7 said:

A note: the FFG rules fellows have confirmed a character does not recieve WS bonuses from a targets size.

Other than this, everything you said was spot on, and I agree.

herichimo said:

Bah, I ignore your errata and replace it with my common sense! But yes, I have taken to reducing the size bonus to hit with Weapon skill or my mainly melee oriented kill team tears right through them.

herichimo said:

Horde Magnitude is arguably not Size, however.

AlphariusOmegon7 said:

I think common sense could go either way here. It depends on whether you think a miss is a literal "swing and a miss" - in which case a Size bonus makes sense, or if you think it's about getting into a position in which you can physically injure somebody, in which case it doesn't.

Well, if you notice, the Horde Magnitudes table lists "Size and To Hit Modifier," sort of vaguely implying that they are different things (Size affecting concealment), and nothing is said in "Attacking a Horde"about it being only for ranged attacks (unlike in the Size description in Traits).

**** you FFG! Why don't you give us any examples? Why, I scream to high heaven, why?!?!

bogi_khaosa said:

Tim's answer:

"As per the rules on page 249 of the Deathwatch Core Rulebook, size is only a factor when making ranged attacks.
Thanks for your question,
Tim "

To my question:

"On Feb 14, 2012, at 6:20 PM,
Rule Question:
Does a PC get a bonus/penalty to WS tests based on his opponent's size catagory in melee?

i.e. if fighting a hulking target would the PC get the +10? Or does the size bonus/penalties only apply to ranged combat?"

Right. But the question is, "Is the bonus to hit a Horde a function of Size, or ad ifferent mechanic"?

bogi_khaosa said:

" …but the appropriate size bonus should apply to these tests based on the Horde’s Magnitude." (Deathwatch (Core) p.359)

The bonus to hit a Horde is a function of Size.

Magnitude makes the horde (as a single entity) a certain size catagory. When you shoot at the horde its size catagory gives it a size bonus to hit (as a single entity).

Magnitude gives size, size gives size bonus. Size bonus does not apply to hand to hand combat.

Decessor said:

That's because the Primitive rule works differently in Black Crusade and Only War - it reduces damage potential for certain weapons (a weapon with Primitive (8) counts all damage rolls of 9 or 10 as 8 instead, for example), and as knives only deal d5 damage basic, they don't need to have their damage capped any further.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

But they can punch through carapace armour

bogi_khaosa said:

Can they? You need to have 2 points more strength than the other guys toughness (for heavy carapace) to be able to do 1 point of damage. I wouldn't call that punching through.

I was hoping that OW would take a page out of the DH:IHB have have things like the combat knife (1d5+3 + str damage) but I haven't go the Beta so I don't know if there are options in there or what.

herichimo said:

Argh! no consistancy! :

On Jul 27, 2012, at 2:04 PM, <XXXX> wrote:

Rule Question:
Do Size modifiers to hit modify both ranged and melee attacks? There seems to be some inconsistency between the Trait description (p. 142) and the Combat Modifiers (p. 246)

Thanks!

Yes, they do apply to both.

Tim Huckelbery
RPG Producer
Fantasy Flight Games
[email protected]
Visit us at http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/

Now, yes, I was asking about Black Crusade but the text is the same in the trait and combat modifier sections. The answer should be the same!

Whose Tim Hucklberry?

They have 2 different Tims working rules queries?

The Deathwatch rules query guy is Tim Flanders.

Face Eater said:

I'm assuming that to cut through the armour with a sharp weapon you just have to outdo the AP. Otherwise the armour would be itself tougher if the person wearing it is tougher,

Even leaving this to one side, a mob of toddlers armed with these new superknives can now kill armoured Space Marines. Knife damage 1d5 + 2d10 for Magnitude + 1 for toddler Strength Bonus = maximum 26 damage.

Man, yet another rule that BC and OW ruined for no good reason.

herichimo said:

The guys working rules questions are also the line developers for the 40kRP games. Tim Flanders is, IIRC, in charge of Deathwatch. Tim Huckelbery is in charge of Dark Heresy (and has worked in various capacities on 40kRP books since the Black Industries days).

bogi_khaosa said:

Given how horde magnitudes work, your example is kind of weighted. Two situations could quite easily come up with such a horde:

A. 1 magnitude equates to more than one toddler (so a massive horde may still only be mag 9, with no real possibility of fitting any more in any given space).

B. Posses some horde trait that limits the damage.

Also, note that 26 damage from a 0 pen weapon on a space marine is still only about 6-10 wounds. Hardly enough to "kill" a marine, and can be fixed via first aid.

Back on topic though, OP needs to swift attack hordes, needs to not have rolled the absolute worst roll for armour history (given that you can choose +/- 1 from any discrete roll on the table, that one area of the table is particularly bad. Perhaps should of asked to use generic rules instead of all out on RoB rules). OP needs to not feel a sense of inferiority and be a team player. Recognize the usefulness of someone with a jetpack when calling a Furious Charge.

The mob of toddlers doing 6-10 Wounds a round with their mighty knives cleaving through ceramite like butter will kill an Astartes in about 30 seconds.

Cats will do it even faster, since they must have Swift Attack.

bogi_khaosa said:

This is silly, but I enjoy silly.

A) A Toddler is going to have a crap weapon skill as well, meaning that they'll probably only hit once out of every 10 turns or so

B) You're looking at MAXIMUM damage, average damage from 1d5 + 2d10 + 1 would be something more along the lines of 14 or 15, which means each turn the Marine is PROBABLY taking zero damage (10 from armor, min 8 from toughness for a reduction pool of 18)

C) A horde of toddlers not posessed by daemonic forces is going to also have a willpower of about 10, meaning when the Astartes cleaves through 300 of them with one punch, they're probably going to break and run

D) If they don't break and run after one attack, they're probably daemon posessed, which means they're of the warp, and nothing goes as planned when fighting warpspawn.

E) It has always been this way if you arm said toddlers with mono-edged knives (just more expensive, but hey, you're saving money on hiring 2 year olds instead of real soldiers)

F) As N0-1 points out, the knifes are different in OW/BC because the quality does different things there, and is for a different set of PCs/NPCs, and is not directly compatible with DW. In fact, it's arguable that DH and RT are not directly compatible with DW either, since there are many minor rule differences.

OK, let's go for kittens.

A kittenprobably has a WS of about 30 or so (it's a predator) and Swift Attack. The Marine can't Dodge so he'll get hit about half of the time. Damage should be, say 1d5-4 R with a SB of 1. 2d10 + 1d5 -4 + 1 = damage range of 4 to 23. A Marine with TB 8 and AB8 will take damage about a quarter of the time.

It's the principle of the thing. Yes the Marine will probably kill the kittens before they can hurt him much. But they should not be able to hurt him, AT ALL. Note that if the Marine is knocked unconscious and thrown into a pit of kittens, he will be eater alive witjhin minutes.

Hell the kittens can claw through a light armored vehicle given half an hour or so.

What the hell was wrong with Primitive where they felt they had to change it? The BC/OW rule requires MORE memorization, not LESS, since the different weapons have different Primitive values. It improves nothing.

bogi_khaosa said:

Previously, a primitive weapon was essentially useless against anyone wearing armour. A normal human with a sword was virtually incapable of harming an average Imperial Guardsman. It basically meant that the Primitive quality was code for "this weapon is essentially useless outside of slaughtering defenceless civilians". An option that nobody uses is not an option.

Yes, it means that primitive weaponry can actually be dangerous… that is the point. If they're not capable of being dangerous, then there is no point in them being in the rules. The fact that different primitive weapons can have different values also allows for greater variance and diversity (as is the case with many abilities in Black Crusade, the addition of different ratings allows far greater control over scaling - pre-Black Crusade, Toxic and Concussive were binary states… now they can be tailored to individual weapons and effects).

N0-1_H3r3 said:

It shouldn't be an option if you have a choice. No self-respecting PC with any money or clout is going to be carrying around a non-mono weapon for the same reason that they're not going to be carrying around flintlock pistols, which are nevertheless in the rules because it some situations some people will use them.

We should logically increase the damage of thrown rocks to 1d10 or suchlike, because otherwise throwing rocks will not be an option.

bogi_khaosa said:

Improvised weapons deal 1d10 damage, Primitive (7) in Black Crusade. No change necessary.

No, primitive weaponry shouldn't be an equal choice to lasguns, mono-blades and the like… but there is no good reason beyond personal preference that primitive weaponry should be so ineffective as to essentially render any and all rules text on them pointless (for all they can do in Dark Heresy, you might as well say "attacks with Primitive weapons should be ignored, as they're essentially worthless" instead of "double all AP against attacks by Primitive weapons", as the end result is essentially the same.

It doesn't help matters that you're basically using edge cases and deliberately-extreme examples to try and prove your point - a common tactic of anyone complaining about rules who don't want to just admit that it's a matter of opinion. Using examples that are deliberately flawed from the outset does nobody any favours.

bogi_khaosa said:

The problem here is nothing to do with the Primitive quality and everything to do with (a) deliberately using the rules to model something they are not intended to model, (b) deliberately citing only the examples in which the rules break down and © attributing the breakdown only to the rule you don't like.

To take an equivalently absurd example:

Consider a Mob of teenage LARPers armed with foam rubber swords. Foam rubber is clearly not "primitive" - it takes quite a lot of technological progress to produce a foam rubber sword. So let's assume that a foam rubber sword does zero damage (plus Strength Bonus). Our LARPers obviously have weapon skill in the region of 60% (since they're twice as good as kittens), so they're doing an average of 2D10 + 3 damage on every hit, and hitting more than half the time, meaning they will once again kill the average space marine in minutes.

You *do* have the kernel of a decent point here, but that point is about the interaction between the Horde Damage Bonus and weapons that do 1D5 damage. It would make sense to limit the kittens to 3D5 -4 damage (I don't see why kittens need a Strength Bonus at all, give them Strength 05). With this setup your kittens are once again incapable of hurting Space Marines, without doubling anybody's armour.