Does anyone if there is a reason primitive armour is no longer reduced by half against non primitive weapons? I know it is also like this in black crusade but black crusade only had options for chainmail while only war also includes plate armour. What's the point of getting light carapace if you can just more easily get some plate armour? Other than the weight restriction which I'm not sure how many of you use.

Weight restrictions is pretty much what it boils down to. Observe the new table for carrying capacity in OW and you will notice that what a character can carry without suffering from penalties after some time has been changed to much more realistic levels.

With this change the carrying capacity becomes a resource, albeit a rather cheap one once the squad includes and ogryn (who could serve as a mule) or a vehicle but still, the average guardsman come very close or even above his carrying limit. If you were to replace his rather light-weight flak armour with a heavy medieval breat plate you'd literally break their backs.

(Yes I know that the modern soldier carries A LOT of gear but sadly these soldiers ARE suffering from this gear, usually long term problem but still).

The whole idea of primitive and none primitie armour and weapons was a bit problematic since it was very un-symetric design (as in this rule of doubling and halfing values was only used in this one situation as opposed to a system like shadowrun where doubling and halfing armour values is rather common).

The one thing that they should change IMO is the Primite(X) property for weapons in that it only applies to none-primitive armour but that's such a minor point that it doesn't really matter all that much for me.

I see your point. I guess I'm just much more of a gamist than a simulationist. In our play group we tend to not bother checking the weight for loads unless we're actively trying to carry a ton of stuff. If one of my players is trying to carry several heavy weapons or trying to dragg the uncious ogryn into cover it would matter but for most situations it seems like rather needless book keeping. Especially for what is a rather fantastical setting.

Droma said:

That's more or less how I usually handle it as well except that my list of situation in which I'll check for weight includes "wearing (unpowered) heavy or primtive armour".

Droma said:

Minor Forge-Language niggle, this has nothing to do with "gamist" versus "simulationist". Tracking carry weights adds an extra strategic dimension to gameplay, and is therefore a perfectly good "gamist" option. Ignoring carry weights better reflects what you call the "rather fantastical setting" which makes it a perfectly good "simulationist" option.

Your preferences here actually come down to preferring or not preferring to keep track of carry weights, which is a very different thing.

That said, I do agree that Primitive armours are a bit too good for what they are, although mostly only when compared to weapons with modern day equivalents like the Autogun (will a quilted coat really have *any* chance of stopping a machine gun bullet?).

A sensible compromise between plausibility and ease of play may be to simply rule Primitive armours *completely ineffective* against non-primitive weapons.

In regards to my personal play group I think I'm just not going to allow the plate armour as an option and not worry about changing any of the rules to primitive armour. The 5 armour to all locations that the plate armour gave and at a lower rarity than light carapace was my main issue. So just banning that single option does exactly what I want, which is to encourage my players to move towards light and storm trooper carapace armour as they advance in their careers. I'm using the only war rules to run a dark haresy game though so along with getting rid of plate armour I'll be adding power armour.

Musclewizard said:

As far as I can tell it is identical to the one in DH? Is there an update I have missed?

Darth Smeg said:

You have missed something yes. I don't have my books right now but I think in DH your carrying capacity was SB+TB+2 (or the table was formated such that a character in OW with SB+TB+2 could carry what a DH character could carry with SB+TB).

I do not think that is right. I have never seen this +2 variant, and my DH book states (p215)

The amount of weight a character can move depends on
the sum of your character’s Strength Bonus and Toughness
Bonus. Compare the total to Table 7-31: Carrying, Lifting,
and Pushing to find out the limits of your might. Note that
certain Traits may increase these values.

Table 7-31 is identical to the one in OW, with the exception that "Total" is now replaced by "Sum of SB and TB".

As far as I can tell, there is no change.

Darth Smeg said:

Now that I have my books I can say that you seem to be correct. I'm not quite sure where I got this idea from in the first place but I always felt that character in OW had a much harder time carrying their gear than characters in DH. Maybe it's because they come loaded with all this stuff in the first place that DH characters usually work quite hard to get.

Edit: The original point still stands though, it just applies to all systems instead of, as I thought, only "Only War".
If you want to use primite armour go ahead, if your character has no problems carrying 19kg extra for 1 point of armour (Feudal World Plate vs. Imperial Guard Flak Armour). To carry those extra 19kg you need roughly two points of SB or TB more than what someone in Flak Armour needs to carry his stuff.

I am house ruling it back in, and all my players agree that it is silly that a set of steel plate less then a 1/4" thick is better at stopping a lasbolt then 41st millennium las bolts, i am also debating on if the weapons with the primitive quality should retain their max damage cap against it, since that is what the armor was designed to go against.

Solarisjock said:

I'd say just go back to the original rules (I.E. Modern weapons are against half a primitive armour's AP, primitive weapons are against double a modern armour's AP). They were a helluva lot less clunky and a helluva lot more realistic than the current system, and they are more balanced as well because the OW version of Primitive has the potentiall unbalancing side-effect of causing weapons with the quality to deal their maximum damage far more often than those without.

Issue with going back to the old way is the very close to invulnerability of standard people in good armor. lets take guard armor as the example, armor 4, doubled to 8, +tb of 3 makes 11. that means the average human swinging a club (used the truncheon stats) can do 1d10+3. that gives the guard an 80% chance of not taking a wound. With the new way, that guard in flak + tb can stop 7 (4+3) while the club with primitive 7+sb can deal ten, so the guard has only a 40% chance of not taking a wound. meaning with the new rules he is twice as likely to take damage, which is good if you want to have them get mobbed by a gang of mutants using clubs, instead of the guard just walking or killing his way through them, as he is virtually invulnerable, he now has to play it smarter.

Solarisjock said:

Your average guardsmen in full flak amour IS meant to be hard though, and an average guy with a club isn't going to cause too much damage because a club relies on impact damage, and the guardsmen is wearing a helmet and lots of padded gear. Like you don't see ice hockey players being killed all the time when hit with sticks - they may get badly bruised but their gear is designed to protect them.

Now a group of people attacking him - he loses his reactions cause of the number of attacks, they'll get bonuses to hit him cause of outnumbering and they can do things like grapple him or knock him down. Those mutants have a bunch of options open to them to overcome his 13 points of damage reduction.

True, but he still has a 40% chance of not taking any damage, and if they are using an "improvised" weapon it gets a further -2 meaning the most he can ever take is 1 wound. which to me represents a pretty bad bruise. also even just going up to Best quality flak armor makes him invincible under the old rules, and against improvised weapons. it also gives him a 50% chance of not taking a wound against the mob armed with clubs, and the max he can take in anyone hit is 2

I prefer the new rules when it comes to how primitive weapons deal damage. I also really like not doubling the armour against primitive weapon attacks. It just didn't make sense and made character invulnerable and took away a lot of the danger that should still be present in any fight.

Also on the hockey stick comment. I played ice hockey at a competitive level for 10 years. If someone is hitting you with a stick in an attempt to actually hurt you then you're going to get injured. The pads are designed to soften the impact of falls and checks not to take whacks from hockey sticks. Only gloves, helmets, and skates are designed to take those kind of impacts and even then it's mostly glancing blows.

So yeah a lead pipe isn't going to do much against carapace or power armour but it should still do a number on anyone wearing flak or less if it connects solidly.

I now use a mixed version of the old and new rules for primitive equipment.

Essentially, primitive weapons use BC and OW rules, capping their damage when attacking a target wearing modern armor but removing the cap if the target is unarmored or only wearing primitive armor because arrows where invented to kill, not to inconvinience.

Conversely, I keep the old version of primitive armor, halving their protection when getting hit by modern weaponry, because if historically the musket made plate mail almost useless I see no reason why it should easily stop a las-bolt, and I don't find halving a single-digit number that strenuous a calculation.

I think this strikes a balance, giving people outfitted with modern equipment a most definite advantage but not so large an advantage as to make them invincible behemoths against a more primitive foe.

Solarisjock said:

But, what's wrong with this? Of course he should be able to withstand a few guys amed with improvised weapons, he's an armoured soldier equipped to fight people with real weapons. Of course peope with lasguns and flak armour will be untouchable by people with bows and arrows.

Are we planning on running campaigns against the Roman Empire or something where this will be an issue?

bogi_khaosa said:

The thing is, real amour does not work that way.
Ignoring the effectiveness of protective vests in general for a moment. There's bullet proof vests and then there's stab proof vests. The former offers little protection against stabbing and the latter ofers little protection against shooting.
I know that 40k doesn't operate by the same rules as our observed reality but still I feel like flak armour shouldn't offer a night inpenetrable high protection against primitive weapons, especially the stabbing types.

Now muskets on the other hand should just bounce harmlessly off of flak and carapace armour.

Musclewizard said:

And then we have kevlar armor reinforced with trauma plates, which is effective against both methods of attack, and considering how prevalent melee combat is in the 41st Millenium, that's most likely how flak armor is designed.