Now I haven't been GMing for very long, but on paper, it seems like primitive weapons are much too crippled when going against non-primitive-armoured targets. It's like as soon as the PCs equip themselves with non-primitive armor, throwing goons armed with regular swords and other primitive melee weapons becomes a lot less effective.

Consider the following example:

For the most part, my PCs have an armor value of three, wearing flak gear and such. If a goon with a sword takes a stab at one of them, assuming that strength and toughness negate each other, the goon can do 4 damage at most (minus Righteous Fury), if he does any damage at all. To me, this seems like to little, but on the other hand, armed with a mono sword, he's essentially guaranteed damage, conflicting up to 9, which is definitely too much. Now consider if the goon has a knife. If un-mono'd, then the knife will never get past the armour value of 3. If mono'd, damage is again nearly guaranteed, conflicting up to 4.

I dislike how there seems to be no middle ground between an underwhelming un-mono'd primitive weapon and a mono'd primitive weapon, so I thought up of some new guidelines for handling them:

-a primitive weapon is not penalized against non-primitive armour

-if a melee weapon is of poor quality, than the conflicting armour counts as double its normal value, rather than suffering -10 to hit

-a melee weapon that is of good quality counts as having a penetration value of +1, rather than gaining +5 to hit

-a melee weapon that is of best quality counts as having a penetration value of +2, rather than gaining +10 to hit

With these house rules, the usual penalty of primitive melee weapons is shifted to that of poor quality melee weapons, making the common quality the middle ground. Besides, it makes much more sense for a goon with a poorly made sword to have less of a chance to pierce his target rather than being less likely to hit it. Quality variation for ranged weapons still handles like usual, though, since its more of a matter of accuracy. I imagine that overall, weapon craftsmanship doesn't come into play very often, anyway, unless a PC actually invests heavily in obtaining a better quality weapon. As for primitive armour, I think they work fine as is, considering that it makes sense for leather to not have much stopping power against bullets.

So, any thoughts on my opinion of primitive weapons being too poor and my house rules to remedy it?

I think the primitive/non-primitive system works quite well. If you dislike the fact that a goon with a sword can do little against your players, give him a gun instead. Firearms are after all a pretty common occurence in the 40K universe. Now if the players find themselves on a feral or feudal planet where non-primitive weapons are almost impossible to come by then just use more opponents. And you should know that Righteous Fury is something that the players and important or powerful NPCs can get, not your average goon.

The problem with replacing the plus-to-hit with penetration when it comes to weapon quality is that melee weapons already have less chance of hitting than a ranged weapon; in melee you can better your chances to hit by the following methods: aim (+10/+20), all-out attack (+20 but lose your dodge/parry) or charge (+10 or +20 with the Berserker Charge talent), and only aim and all-out can be used together but then you won't get to attack until your next turn.

Now ranged weapons have it much easier: aim (+10/+20), half-range (+10), point blank range (+30), semi-auto fire (+10), full-auto fire (+20), red-dot sight (+10 to single shot fire). If you have a red-dot sight, which is not that hard to come by, and are standing at half-range you can still get +30 to hit with a single shot by just using a half action aim. And when you end up at point blank range you don't miss very often.

The +5 for good quality and +10 for best quality is a really good boost to your chance to hit with melee weapons, and using penetration instead just means that a good quality weapon is no better than a poor quality weapon against a non-armoured enemy, because penetration does not count towards toughness bonus.

if they are to hard to hurt why dont use 2h weapon that 2d10 pen 2 primitive should make them scared again of melee goons

I like to call this effect the "Anti-Endor" - and I think it's quite appropriate, especially considering that there is stuff like mutants with Unnatural Strength. A guy that tries to cut open military armour with a knife deserves what he gets.

Add me to the list of people that say the system is fine.

Standard/primitive (non monoed or otherwise improved) melee weapons should be next to useless against the high tech armors. This is true of todays armors as well, try and get a knife through the plates of intercepter armor or through dragonskin armor (spare me the I will just slide it up beneath the scales, easier said than done with archaic armor and with how the dragonskin armor is bonded down, likely imposible)... good luck you will need it.

Hell, you ever try and cut ballistic kevlar.... ?

It might be possible to stab through a light ballistic vest that (as the name implies) is built only to take bullets, because its the only real threat in our world, in the imperium armor faces a great varity threats and thus will be built to handle all types of weapons.

Part of the problem is that there are no rules governing damage type and armour defence. An arrow would IGNORE flak armour, it is completely different to the ballistic impact the armour is designed to protect against. A musket ball on the otherhand would be stopped rightquick (although it would hurt like a *****). Armour like Carapace would stop arrows and musket balls similarly, but material armours like flak would not. A Dagger would go straight through (unless it hit a ballistic insert).

I've been toying with simply adding +2 armour or +2 pen depending on the weapon and armour in question. Doubling creates a massive gap very quickly.

hellebore

Considering how many factions of the 40k world like to engage in melee and how often the Guard is used against low-tech worlds - why do you think their armour is ineffective against such enemies?

You also need to take into account when they are wearing armor. If the pc's don't care about attracting attention, then they could wear medium or heavy armor. But if they are trying to avoid attention, then the armor has to go. Examples would include undercover work, noble houses, and the poorer sections of any town.

Nothing says low profile like power armor and a heavy bolter.

And grenades. You gotta have the grenades. All different varieties of grenades. BOOM BOOM subtle BOOM!

That reminds me of the Shadowrun description of bullets...

"Regular Ammo: Standard full metal jacket rounds for all purposes (mostly killing)."

Cifer said:

The majority of Imperial Guard battles would be fought against traitor guard or orks. The description of flak armour is similar to kevlar, which is not resistant to sharp pointed objects.

Assuming guard flak wouldn't get pierced by sharp pointed objects, being a material it would still deform under impact. The Mongolians wore silk because it would wrap around arrow heads when they penetrated the flesh so they could pull them back out. Assuming flak didn't immediately cut under a sharp point, it would just wrap around the blade as it went it. It would be better than not having it, but it wouldn't stop a blade or arrow from causing puncturing wounds.

Hellebore

The majority of Imperial Guard battles would be fought against traitor guard or orks. The description of flak armour is similar to kevlar, which is not resistant to sharp pointed objects.

Because orks are completely averse to fighting enemies with low-tech weapons in melee, you mean?

Assuming guard flak wouldn't get pierced by sharp pointed objects, being a material it would still deform under impact. The Mongolians wore silk because it would wrap around arrow heads when they penetrated the flesh so they could pull them back out. Assuming flak didn't immediately cut under a sharp point, it would just wrap around the blade as it went it. It would be better than not having it, but it wouldn't stop a blade or arrow from causing puncturing wounds.

From the description of the armour, it is "impact absorbent" and "effective against shrapnel" - which would translate to me as being good against both piercing and bludgeoning damage, to use the D&D terms. Also, don't forget that guard flak is not Kevlar - it's Kevlar after a few ten thousand years of evolution and devolution. What exactly it is by now is up to what the rules say it is. And the rules say it protects with eight points against primitive weapons.

Hellebore said:

Yes it is, a friend of mine got stabbed in his vest when we were in Iraq and the bayonet broke.

If you read the imperials infanterymans uplifting primer you will know that guard flak armour is quiet a bit more complexs than a kevelar vest, and is made to withstand a large range of threats

Action_Carl said:

Did it hit a ceramic plate? Kevlar is from the same family as nylon and woven together so it's flexible. You can cut it with scissors.

Hellebore

Hellebore said:

No it just hit the kevlar, but the vest has something like 17 layers so it's about 1/4 of an inch thick, you might bruise the guy if you hit them hard enough but you're not going to do much actual penetration.

Hellebore said:

Kevlar in cloth form is very soft and pliant and can in fact be cut and torn easily. It also has a slight rubbery feel. LAMINATED kevlar however is quite hard and you would be very hard pressed to cut it with anything short of an industrial cutting tool, preferably of the hydraulic press and diamond-grit bandsaw variety....

Pretty sure the vests that the military are wearing over in Iraq are of higher quality than the one the average police force has, which is the kind that people are used to seeing in video demonstrations getting punctured with a knife.

Sarius said:

Yup. Especially flak armour, since the reason why you can puncture kevlar vests is because a knife stab doesn't have the same kinetic force as a bullet. A non-rigid protection vest will have problems against stabbings unless it is made of stab-proof material.

Flak armour as they are described in 40K seem to be of rigid design, but still able to protect the user from solid projectile weapons and even certain types of energy weapons.

Even an edged primitive weapon would not likely be able to pierce such a material, but swords and spears being able to pack a lot of punch as well as cutting power will do some damage (mostly blunt, but still focussed crushing damage) through even rigid armour, it will not have the same crippling effect as they would have if they were able to pierce the skin and rupture bloodvessels.

Weapons with the mono upgrade naturally override this of course, since... Well they have been reinforced and sharpened to a monomolecular edge (basically as sharp as any cutting or stabbing weapon could ever get), hence they don't count as primitive and can do some serious damage, even to targets protected by flak armour.

The way I see it, there's nothing wrong with penetration rules for melee weapons and primitive melee weapons at all.

Primitive weapons will still be deadly against unarmoured targets, and targets armoured with primitive armour. But if you take a sword of primitive design made in a blacksmith on some world using technology from the dark ages and try it out on sci-fi flak armour, the sword should have serious problems.

You should consider the fact that flak protects against lasbolts, futuristic slug-thrower ammo, and to some extent chainsword. This is SO not your early 21st century Kevlar, that's for sure.

from france

the probleme is that apart the lathes and the mono edges quality the game don't separate the primitive material and the modern one. i think it most disturbing because if the game make a difference for the armor why it doesn't make it for the weapons. well i know it does make it but i think it s not balanced.

the 8 spider said:

Hmm, could you extrapolate a little further with some examples? Im not sure im following you here.

from france

yes of course i can. i mean by that the flack armor is made of modern material. a blade can be made of modern material but stil be considered as a primittive weapon. the game say a primitive armor is primitive because of her material not because of her design. the game say that a sword is primitive regardless of the material used to make it. unless it is mono or lathes. so yes i thonk it is unbalanced to say that a rmor is primitivie just for the material and not the design and to say that a weapon is primitive no matter what mateial is used. ( i don't evean speadck of the method used to craft it).

i hope i have been clear this time.

the 8 spider said:

Ok, I guessed that's what you meant, I just wasn't sure.

Im not really sure it's an issue of material but rather of design. If you look at today for instance where we have made great progress in the fields of metalurgy, being able to create durable alloys of metals and such you could easily say that a knife produced today would be a lot more durable and advanced than a knife produced during the middle ages.

But even a modern knife wouldn't be likely to do more damage than it's middle ages counterpart. It's still just a sharp piece of metal after all. The same goes for swords, halberds, spears etc. etc.

In fact, even modern world glas fibre compound bows (that are quite powerful) do have a few equivalent models made hundreds of years ago, and these old bows could quite feasibly compete with their modern counterparts.

So it's not really an issue of material but of design. And primitive weapons in 40K seem to hold that same design as they had in our dark ages, which means that they wouldn't be very effective against sci-fi armour like flak armour. I mean, that armour is designed to absorb not only projectile weapons but laser shots as well (or at the very least, make sure that the wearer isn't incapacitated by it), if that's the case there's no wonder why primitive weapons have a hard time beating that armour. A middle ages style sword couldn't even begin to compete with such weaponry.

The same goes for primitive armour. If you take a medival piece of chainmail and a few layers of kevlar, a bullet would likely pierce the chainmail without much effort but it would get stuck in the kevlar. Primitive equivalents of armour just can't compete with modern materials. Just imagine the difference between primitive against sci-fi equivalents.

Of course the primitive aspect is removed as soon as a weapon get the mono or lathes upgrade, but this isn't a question of material either but a design issue. Somehow in 40K mankind has managed to be able to sharpen edges to be monomolecular (mono upgrade). How they do this no one can really say, but they can. And that's why they are more able to cut through even their sci-fi armour. The reasoning here being: if you're gonna have an effective method against a sci-fi solution, you need something equally sci-fi to have a chance in effectively beating it.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable, sound and balanced approach.