Yeah. Honestly, they should have gotten rid of the d% system all together. I know, heresy, SACRILIGE!

But it's the best thing for the system they could have done I think. Linear dice systems are kind of flawed, and percentile especially. Should start using a 3d10 system or something akin to deadlands instead imo. 'Sides, its not warhammer unless you're throwing buckets of dice

As for the dh1 psyker system, its 10% per dice, but you don't have 50% chance to trigger with 5 dice. I much prefer it to the current system partly because it is a unique dice roll, which helps enforce the fact that psykerisms are different, and also because its a much more variable scale instead of a binary switch. At least DH2 doesn't have fettering so you can never avoid psyphen. I really don't like merging psychich phenomena and perils either.

See, I always found that pskyers are completely overpowered and ridiculous. They're like any regular acolyte, except they can also turn invisible, guarantee their next attack will hit, float, regenerate, and use what is probably the best melee weapons. But they were always balanced by the fact that each time they used their powers there was a slight chance that they would die, irrevocably and unpreventably. Or even worse, create a tpk. The higher powers really balanced this well, to make them likely to trigger, you had to roll lots of dice, but rolling lots of dice is dangerous, so you want to roll less, but then you might fail to manifest and waste your turn.... The results in general are a lot less dangerous now I feel.

I liked my psykers as walking time bombs with lazor eyes. It also gave players a good reason to actually dislike and distrust psykerisms like the fluff says one should.

Technically they should be d6's if you want to stick to Warhammer! (Actually, I might have supported porting over to a d6 based system since that would have made it cross compatible with the 40k TT! But that's neither here nor there.)

I agree that the Psykers were more unique in DH1 but I think the WP based system is much cleaner. If you want to remove the "no peril" nature of fettered use than simply house rule that ANY manifestation role of Psychic powers role of 95-100 triggers a Psychic phenomena roll regardless of Psychic strength used.

Honestly, the only overpowered thing with psykers was some abuse of telekinesis powers in the other lines; short of Ascension (we don't go there, tis' a silly place) their damage abilities, both burst and sustained, can't really compare with other characters (no matter the ruleset, a Psyker with a force weapon is going to get sliced and diced if it goes up against a melee speced character; the difference in accuracy and number of attacks is simply too hard to compensate for, and their ranged damage pales compared to even a storm bolter, not to mention any real heavy weapon), and the utility cost of manifesting a power can be much higher. Sure, they have some added utility powers, and can cast almost anytime, but all the xp they spent on those the other characters spent on their own stuff, including better skills and combat prowess.

Psykers could get lots of parries, swift attacks and such as well IIRC. Force sword channeling ignores soak, and could do MANY d10s of damage. Regeneration made them almost invulnerable. Then there was that hilarious absolutely kill everything in the room including yourself pyromancy

Speaking of pyromancy, burning is so toothless in this. Get hit by hand flamer: takes 7 turns until burning starts doing damage.

Psykers could get lots of parries, swift attacks and such as well IIRC. Force sword channeling ignores soak, and could do MANY d10s of damage. Regeneration made them almost invulnerable. Then there was that hilarious absolutely kill everything in the room including yourself pyromancy

Look at the autocannon. For a measly 1000 thrones, you can rock and roll to the tune of 4d10 + 5 that can go full auto. Sure, it's heavy as sin, but if you need the firepower, conventional weaponry is the way to go. The Vox Legi or the Vanahem shotguns also ruin anything foolish enough to stand close.

Autocannon is also impossible to hide, so good luck getting close to the corrupted Imperial governor with it

But yeah, a lot of the heavy weapons are insane. But they also have to set up, which gives enemy time to go into melee, and because they're so heavy they don't allow for much armor or backup weapons in my experience.

And speaking of dh2, there's nothing preventing a psyker from picking up an autocannon and combining it with some sustained powers for total superiority.

Forgot to mention this in my previous post: No hardcap for stats. This is silly. Are acolytes orkz suddenly who just grow bigger and better the longer they live? It doesn't take many ranks before they're better than space marines, which is just silly.

Forgot to mention this in my previous post: No hardcap for stats. This is silly. Are acolytes orkz suddenly who just grow bigger and better the longer they live? It doesn't take many ranks before they're better than space marines, which is just silly.

Having stats reach up to 95 also completely destroys a d% base system, which usually start to collapse at around 50-70% base stat (fittingly, that's where high level marines where, so it's fitting as a standard cap). Just look at ranged combat; with 95 BS, the only way you can miss is if you Jam. You get to a point where the d% represents less than the stat and modifiers, a problem akin to what was seen in d&d with high level characters rolling 1d20 + 40-50, making the d20 itself nearly meaningless unless you decided to dump all your accuracy for more damage, something you can't do in DH.

Indeed. One of the really good, solid changes from WFRP2 to the 40K lines was the inclusion of Unnatural attributes. Suddenly, you could have ungodly strong things who were head and shoulders above the rest (like a bloodthirster), instead of having max strength trollslayers who were stronger than giants. Moving back to uncapped stats, and the loss of unnatural attributes, is a really, really bad call.

Forgot to mention this in my previous post: No hardcap for stats. This is silly. Are acolytes orkz suddenly who just grow bigger and better the longer they live? It doesn't take many ranks before they're better than space marines, which is just silly.

Having stats reach up to 95 also completely destroys a d% base system, which usually start to collapse at around 50-70% base stat (fittingly, that's where high level marines where, so it's fitting as a standard cap). Just look at ranged combat; with 95 BS, the only way you can miss is if you Jam. You get to a point where the d% represents less than the stat and modifiers, a problem akin to what was seen in d&d with high level characters rolling 1d20 + 40-50, making the d20 itself nearly meaningless unless you decided to dump all your accuracy for more damage, something you can't do in DH.

Indeed. One of the really good, solid changes from WFRP2 to the 40K lines was the inclusion of Unnatural attributes. Suddenly, you could have ungodly strong things who were head and shoulders above the rest (like a bloodthirster), instead of having max strength trollslayers who were stronger than giants. Moving back to uncapped stats, and the loss of unnatural attributes, is a really, really bad call.

I'll admit I've not studied up on this yet... But normal human capabilities seem like they should never exceed much more than 60% maximum... If stats can indeed be raised up to the 80's and 90's, making the game trivial, that's indeed a flaw that needs to be corrected. I read that a stat could only be advanced once per rank, but I assumed there was a cap in there somewhere rather than spanning all 10 ranks!

Right now advancing all 10 ranks places max strength and toughness at an effective 85 for ten ranks.

That still seems a bit absurd.

Right now advancing all 10 ranks places max strength and toughness at an effective 85 for ten ranks.

That still seems a bit absurd.

Unless I'm mistaken, it's 95 (2D10+25 = 45, plus an extra 50 from the 10 ranks, bonuses due to homeworld nonwithstanding), which means that, for shooting, you either hit or the weapon jams. Still, it's quite bothersome. Random rank 10 acolyte has 95 Strength. How much does a Bloodthirster have, then? 150? 200? On a game that's scaled from 1 to 100? What about a Genestealer? 65? So acolytes are arm-wrestling them from rank 7 on? It's a terrible idea.

Indeed. One of the really good, solid changes from WFRP2 to the 40K lines was the inclusion of Unnatural attributes. Suddenly, you could have ungodly strong things who were head and shoulders above the rest (like a bloodthirster), instead of having max strength trollslayers who were stronger than giants. Moving back to uncapped stats, and the loss of unnatural attributes, is a really, really bad call.

*blinks* You liked Unnaturals? An awkward way of letting a character's stat jump gaps because it's a direct multiplicator of the base value? Not to mention the weird idea of having said character be stronger, but ... not really, because the test still looks to the base value? The talent that made DW Space Marines tougher than the powered armour they wear and forced counterproductive damage increases on their own equipment as well as enemy NPCs (-> Hordes), the thing that ultimately led to the "exploding dice" problem in that game where characters are at risk of either being not even scratched or killed within one or two attacks?

I guess we'd have to disagree there. Unnaturals are at least just as wrong as uncapped max stats, and have been since their very first introduction in Dark Heresy...

As for the "engine" itself, I still think that the d100 system is sound. Its problem lies with how it was pushed to the breaking point by various later supplements and games; there were too many ways to improve a character's chances of success and the gap between characters became ever wider, as the higher and more elite PCs eventually pushed into the area where success was almost guaranteed. In my opinion, the issue is entirely avoidable simply with a more "tame" approach.

Otherwise, the problem would only be recreated in other dice systems. What would a change to, say, 3d6 bring if player characters end up having stats and skills beyond 20? Ultimately, the only way to deal with this is by either introducing more and more penalties to make the tests ever harder, or to simply reign in the excesses of higher and higher stats.

Didn't they fix it some what in Black Crusade and Only War? Making unnaturals be pluses instead of multipliers that is.

Yup. Which is why, upon reading that, I thought "why not get rid of them entirely"...

I mean, why not include the +X in the starting characteristics table? Isn't that what it's there for?

But even just the trait change was certainly a huge improvement over having them as multipliers - at least in my opinion. Mileages will vary.

*blinks* You liked Unnaturals? An awkward way of letting a character's stat jump gaps because it's a direct multiplicator of the base value? Not to mention the weird idea of having said character be stronger, but ... not really, because the test still looks to the base value? The talent that made DW Space Marines tougher than the powered armour they wear and forced counterproductive damage increases on their own equipment as well as enemy NPCs (-> Hordes), the thing that ultimately led to the "exploding dice" problem in that game where characters are at risk of either being not even scratched or killed within one or two attacks?

I guess we'd have to disagree there. Unnaturals are at least just as wrong as uncapped max stats, and have been since their very first introduction in Dark Heresy...

As for the "engine" itself, I still think that the d100 system is sound. Its problem lies with how it was pushed to the breaking point by various later supplements and games; there were too many ways to improve a character's chances of success and the gap between characters became ever wider, as the higher and more elite PCs eventually pushed into the area where success was almost guaranteed. In my opinion, the issue is entirely avoidable simply with a more "tame" approach.

I personally feel Unnaturals worked quite well, if used sparingly. It gave a way to give things a real boost, without breaking stupid levels of stats. Also, while the original rulebook didn't have any bonus to standard checks, the Inquisitor's Handbook introduced the "reduced the difficulty by one level" thing, which I thought works quite well. The problem wasn't with the mechanic itself, but with its proliferation. It should have been purely reserved for very specific things (daemons being the primary example I can think of), and, for one, should never have been applied to Space Marines (I personally feel a base stat of about 50+ would have been better, and would have functioned similarly for most tests to a 40+ with Unnaturals, except for the Bonus, reducing the damage reduction problems).

Personally I didn't like the changes to additive Bonuses, because now a personal with Unnatural attributes really doesn't see any bonus to their chance of passing standard tests, just passing better when they do.

I also personally don't think uncapping the maximum bonuses from +/- 30 has helped. Wiith skill checks, if you are getting +/- 60 is 1) rare and 2) if you have got that good a bonus success should just be granted automatically. In combat that bonus is more likely, but just makes bonus hunting even more of a thing, and just results in stupid things like Space Marines needing under an 115 to hit. On the penalty side, if you reduce the level of characters then you don't need such a big penalty to make a noticeable difference. A starting character even -30 is crippling, and if the highest likely score you can get is 70ish in a skill (30 odd starting stat, +20 characteristic advances and +20 for skill mastery), then -30 is a big penalty. The idea that some of the best in the galaxy at something will have a 40-50% chance success at something really hard doesn't strike me as unreasonable, at least in the context of a game. Again, if it needs to be harder than that, why bother even letting it normally be attempt-able?

I personally feel Unnaturals worked quite well, if used sparingly. It gave a way to give things a real boost, without breaking stupid levels of stats. Also, while the original rulebook didn't have any bonus to standard checks, the Inquisitor's Handbook introduced the "reduced the difficulty by one level" thing, which I thought works quite well.

We are very much in agreement about the rest tho!

I quite liked the unnaturals system. It just didn't work very well on Player Character because it would scale to ridiculous amounts. BC system kind of fixed that.

Edit: Another bad thing about talent trees I just noticed(aside from their complete nonsensical nature and everyone having access to everything at the same price). They are REALLY hard to expend. If you add a melee talent, it's going to be a pain. It either needs its own tree, or you need to reprint the tree each supplement. That's going to get supremely messy very quickly.

In fact, that's probably why so many cool talents have been cut, they didn't fit....

Edit2: I think the wounds system is the worst part of DH2, it's simply too much for the GM to keep track of without turning combat into a slog. It would be a bit more fine if it was just PC's, but prob still too much table flipping. That could be solved by publishing a free app for smartphones though, that could roll+check tables for you.... might be worth considering.

That could be solved by publishing a free app for smartphones though, that could roll+check tables for you.... might be worth considering.

It wouldn't necessarily solve anything. I don't own a SmartPhone. I don't need a SmartPhone; I've been using my Motorola for almost eight years. So the most an app would do is make some peoples' use of the tables easier. So we're back to square one, there. The tables have to be easy to use and self contained within the Core Rules.

The combat system absolutely has to flow freely.

What if...

...the tables were somehow printed on a dial of some sort? Static information on the outer facings (front and back), changing information on either side of the inner dial...? Or vice versa. I know that seems gimmicky, but it's better than turning pages. Something manufactured to represent a two-dimensional, hand-held orrerry. Something durable, like of plastic rather than card stock. Heck, the dial could be cardstock and included free with the Core Rules, with replacements or extras available for single purchase, and FFG could market a limited edition super-fancy dial.

I would say most gaming groups have access to a smartphone, at least where I live. And yes, it's at best, a patch, its not a solution, so I really should have said mitigated. I don't really like props in PnPs, it's kinda messy...

I don't really like props in PnPs, it's kinda messy...

It's not intended as a prop. It's intended as the tables required to manage combat, but without having the book open in front of you just to flip pages while also having notes spread around, your pile of collected dice, any miniatures you may be using, pens, pencils, erasers, the obligatory Mt. Dew bottle and Cheetos bag, etc. I know every time I pick up a book to reference something my Players realize something is about to happen. I'm sure I'm not the only GM that opens a bestiary or other book moments prior to an encounter or other Structured Time event...

You wait and see. I'll get my copy of the beta, design a dial out of cereal boxes, make one for each player around the table, and while our books remain crisp and unsullied, you'll be lamenting the worn and torn corners of your pages.

Besides, what is an app? Just an electronic prop.

I never understood why they changed Unnatural Characteristics, instead of creating two different things. Unnatural Characteristics, which multiplies base Characteristic Bonus (as it worked in original Dark Heresy) as well as the system introduced later, renamed to something like Abnormal Characteristics, working addative (as in Black Crusade (afaik) & Only War). One would similarly give a bonus to rolls, while another would give increased degrees of success, or somesuch.

It would allow you to do both; make those Daemons exceedingly strong, without breaking the system when applied to players in various fashions (or other NPC's). Both have a potential role to play that makes sense within the context of the universe and are useful from a mechanical standpoint.

Why choose either/or, when you can have both, and use both independently from eachother? "Unnatural Characteristics" is not an intrinsic problem with the original WH40k-RP ruleset. It's a matter of poor implementation and screwed-up implementation especially from the viewpoint of backwards-compatibility.

Indeed. One of the really good, solid changes from WFRP2 to the 40K lines was the inclusion of Unnatural attributes. Suddenly, you could have ungodly strong things who were head and shoulders above the rest (like a bloodthirster), instead of having max strength trollslayers who were stronger than giants. Moving back to uncapped stats, and the loss of unnatural attributes, is a really, really bad call.

*blinks* You liked Unnaturals? An awkward way of letting a character's stat jump gaps because it's a direct multiplicator of the base value? Not to mention the weird idea of having said character be stronger, but ... not really, because the test still looks to the base value? The talent that made DW Space Marines tougher than the powered armour they wear and forced counterproductive damage increases on their own equipment as well as enemy NPCs (-> Hordes), the thing that ultimately led to the "exploding dice" problem in that game where characters are at risk of either being not even scratched or killed within one or two attacks?

I guess we'd have to disagree there. Unnaturals are at least just as wrong as uncapped max stats, and have been since their very first introduction in Dark Heresy...

As for the "engine" itself, I still think that the d100 system is sound. Its problem lies with how it was pushed to the breaking point by various later supplements and games; there were too many ways to improve a character's chances of success and the gap between characters became ever wider, as the higher and more elite PCs eventually pushed into the area where success was almost guaranteed. In my opinion, the issue is entirely avoidable simply with a more "tame" approach.

Otherwise, the problem would only be recreated in other dice systems. What would a change to, say, 3d6 bring if player characters end up having stats and skills beyond 20? Ultimately, the only way to deal with this is by either introducing more and more penalties to make the tests ever harder, or to simply reign in the excesses of higher and higher stats.

Yes, I did like Unnaturals far more than the equivalent in WFRP2 (i.e, troll slayers and heroes who were stronger than Giants). It was a breath of fresh air by comparison, when I could have creatures that were exponentially stronger than humans in the fluff actually be exponentially stronger (or near so) in the game without breaking the D100 scale. The fact that BC and OW made them even more reasonable from a mechanical point of view, and not so clunky (multiplying could lead to some silly situations) was an added bonus. I don't see them forcing the system to use exploding dice to harm them either, because that's the point of Hordes if you wish to use mooks. They already deal a ton of damage (or just port the Righteous Fury from BC/OW. A 10 is a single point of damage if it would inflict none).

Your biggest problem is including pointless rules noone wants nor uses.

All I'm hearing is "you include rules that I don't want to use, and so no one else should either." That's not a very fair stance to take.

It says that all characters begin with all the Skills in the game. Listed creation Skills are Skills that the character starts with at Rank 2. So they have more Skills than in Dark Heresy 1, but advances are more expensive.

Really? That's an odd design decision.

I think it works well. All the skills are broad. If you go to the description of each skill, you will find multiple uses of the skill using several different characteristics. All characters may have the same skill, but each character will be better at some uses of the skill and worse at others, depending on their characteristics.

No matter how you slice an RPG, the recipe is the same... Attribute (Strength, Toughness, Willpower) + Skill (Evade, Pilot, Remembrence) + Talents (Marksman, Hawkeye) = Total Ability ...which is then modified by the conditions of the test. Period.

Yes, I did like Unnaturals far more than the equivalent in WFRP2 (i.e, troll slayers and heroes who were stronger than Giants). It was a breath of fresh air by comparison, when I could have creatures that were exponentially stronger than humans in the fluff actually be exponentially stronger (or near so) in the game without breaking the D100 scale. The fact that BC and OW made them even more reasonable from a mechanical point of view, and not so clunky (multiplying could lead to some silly situations) was an added bonus. I don't see them forcing the system to use exploding dice to harm them either, because that's the point of Hordes if you wish to use mooks. They already deal a ton of damage (or just port the Righteous Fury from BC/OW. A 10 is a single point of damage if it would inflict none).

But you don't have to break the d100 scale by making someone (or something) way stronger than humans if you simply come up with a proper scale and keep to it. Remember the example characteristics table from the original Dark Heresy core rulebook?

In a game where natural human Strength can reach from, say, 20-50 (the latter number representing those uncommon exceptions from the rule), how could a creature with Strength 60 or 70 not appear "exponentially stronger"?

Or, alternatively, let me re-phrase my earlier argument. What exactly is it that you want to depict here?

Do you want the creature to easier succeed on Strength-related tasks? Then go for a direct stat increase.

Do you want the creature to simply hit harder, but not necessarily more often? Natural Weapons trait.

And you are really okay with player characters hovering between "not a scratch" and "instakill" rather than something in-between? Because I don't think this would be most players' comfort zone, unless I am really bad at gauging opinions.

Not to mention that Hordes operate on a ridiculous level of abstraction, where a weapon which would be of no threat to the character magically becomes dangerous just because you suddenly have 10 guys wielding it instead of 9.

Yes, I did like Unnaturals far more than the equivalent in WFRP2 (i.e, troll slayers and heroes who were stronger than Giants). It was a breath of fresh air by comparison, when I could have creatures that were exponentially stronger than humans in the fluff actually be exponentially stronger (or near so) in the game without breaking the D100 scale. The fact that BC and OW made them even more reasonable from a mechanical point of view, and not so clunky (multiplying could lead to some silly situations) was an added bonus. I don't see them forcing the system to use exploding dice to harm them either, because that's the point of Hordes if you wish to use mooks. They already deal a ton of damage (or just port the Righteous Fury from BC/OW. A 10 is a single point of damage if it would inflict none).

But you don't have to break the d100 scale by making someone (or something) way stronger than humans if you simply come up with a proper scale and keep to it. Remember the example characteristics table from the original Dark Heresy core rulebook?

In a game where natural human Strength can reach from, say, 20-50 (the latter number representing those uncommon exceptions from the rule), how could a creature with Strength 60 or 70 not appear "exponentially stronger"?

Or, alternatively, let me re-phrase my earlier argument. What exactly is it that you want to depict here?

Do you want the creature to easier succeed on Strength-related tasks? Then go for a direct stat increase.

Do you want the creature to simply hit harder, but not necessarily more often? Natural Weapons trait.

And you are really okay with player characters hovering between "not a scratch" and "instakill" rather than something in-between? Because I don't think this would be most players' comfort zone, unless I am really bad at gauging opinions.

Not to mention that Hordes operate on a ridiculous level of abstraction, where a weapon which would be of no threat to the character magically becomes dangerous just because you suddenly have 10 guys wielding it instead of 9.

Let's see, point for point...

If I have a guy with Strength 40, on a 01-100 scale, a creature with Strength 60 isn't exponentially stronger. It's 33% stronger. If a creature rolls 1D10+Strength Bonus for damage, then the creature with strength 60 is dealing 2 more points of damage, which only comes second to the 1D10 damage being rolled (and here I'm assuming unarmed attacks, or in the case of WFRP2, most weapons). So no, 60 or 70 isn't exponentially higher.

Now, for comparison, let's take a Hive Tyrant (from the Deathwatch Corebook). When said Hive Tyrant attacks, its Str is 60/x3, for a SB of 18. Compare that to the Str 40 human, and suddenly this guy is nearly 5 times stronger. If one were to arm wrestle the other, it'd get 3 extra degrees of success on its opposed roll, too (assuming it succeeds). Even if the human were somehow supernaturally strong (Str 50 or 60), the Hive Tyrant would still be 3 times stronger.

If I want extra damage, natural weapons doesn't cut it. What natural weapons does a Daemon Prince have? What about an Ogryn? Or a Carnifex? Do we make those natural weapons stronger than a plasma cannon or power fist? It's rather clunky, and an exception-based design. Unnatural attributes however allow us to break the 1-100 scale without breaking the scaling, if you catch my meaning. Easier success on strength tests through increased stats isn't a good idea either. That's what situational mods are for. Lifting a tank, for a hive tyrant, should be an Easy task, at least, whereas for a Guardsman, it should be Hellish. Unnatural attributes don't require us to have a character with a 90-100% chance of success, which the alternative would force us to have (and if you don't believe me, check the stats for Greater Daemons in WFRP2. The Bloodthirster is mostly 90's).

On the "not a scratch vs. instakill", I'm not sure where you've seen that, to be honest. Let's take a Mag 30+ of renegade militia with lasrifles. Lasguns deal 1D10+3, pen 0, which are increased to 3D10+3 by the horde's magnitude (the extra D10's cap at +2D10). On an average damage roll (20), your average space marine (TB8, 8 Armor points) takes 4 Wounds. Even a maximum damage hit will only deal 17 Wounds, which is less than the usual starting Wounds of a Space Marine. Meanwhile, if you're dealing with Guardsmen (or acolytes) as PC's, then why are you using Hordes anyway, and not single numbers of enemies?

On the level of abstraction... It works for me, to be honest. Wounds are an abstraction. Toughness Bonus is an abstraction. It's not because I have "10 guys instead of 9 that the weapon starts dealing damage". Hordes don't start at 10 guys. Magnitude is an abstract measure, just as much as Wounds. 5 Genestealers might be a Horde with Mag 20. Conversely, 100 Heretics might represent a Mag 40 Horde. Magnitude is a measure of both numbers, training, discipline and any other considerations the GM deems appropriate. When those 100 heretics open fire on you, some of the shots will eventually go through the armor, hit a vulnerable spot, or simply get lucky. That's the increased damage for you. It is indeed an abstraction, but one that works. Uncapped stats on a 1-100 scale with a linear increase in power doesn't.

Let's see, point for point...

If I have a guy with Strength 40, on a 01-100 scale, a creature with Strength 60 isn't exponentially stronger. It's 33% stronger. If a creature rolls 1D10+Strength Bonus for damage, then the creature with strength 60 is dealing 2 more points of damage, which only comes second to the 1D10 damage being rolled (and here I'm assuming unarmed attacks, or in the case of WFRP2, most weapons). So no, 60 or 70 isn't exponentially higher.

Now, for comparison, let's take a Hive Tyrant (from the Deathwatch Corebook). When said Hive Tyrant attacks, its Str is 60/x3, for a SB of 18. Compare that to the Str 40 human, and suddenly this guy is nearly 5 times stronger. If one were to arm wrestle the other, it'd get 3 extra degrees of success on its opposed roll, too (assuming it succeeds). Even if the human were somehow supernaturally strong (Str 50 or 60), the Hive Tyrant would still be 3 times stronger.

If I want extra damage, natural weapons doesn't cut it. What natural weapons does a Daemon Prince have? What about an Ogryn? Or a Carnifex? Do we make those natural weapons stronger than a plasma cannon or power fist? It's rather clunky, and an exception-based design. Unnatural attributes however allow us to break the 1-100 scale without breaking the scaling, if you catch my meaning. Easier success on strength tests through increased stats isn't a good idea either. That's what situational mods are for. Lifting a tank, for a hive tyrant, should be an Easy task, at least, whereas for a Guardsman, it should be Hellish. Unnatural attributes don't require us to have a character with a 90-100% chance of success, which the alternative would force us to have (and if you don't believe me, check the stats for Greater Daemons in WFRP2. The Bloodthirster is mostly 90's).

On the "not a scratch vs. instakill", I'm not sure where you've seen that, to be honest. Let's take a Mag 30+ of renegade militia with lasrifles. Lasguns deal 1D10+3, pen 0, which are increased to 3D10+3 by the horde's magnitude (the extra D10's cap at +2D10). On an average damage roll (20), your average space marine (TB8, 8 Armor points) takes 4 Wounds. Even a maximum damage hit will only deal 17 Wounds, which is less than the usual starting Wounds of a Space Marine. Meanwhile, if you're dealing with Guardsmen (or acolytes) as PC's, then why are you using Hordes anyway, and not single numbers of enemies?

On the level of abstraction... It works for me, to be honest. Wounds are an abstraction. Toughness Bonus is an abstraction. It's not because I have "10 guys instead of 9 that the weapon starts dealing damage". Hordes don't start at 10 guys. Magnitude is an abstract measure, just as much as Wounds. 5 Genestealers might be a Horde with Mag 20. Conversely, 100 Heretics might represent a Mag 40 Horde. Magnitude is a measure of both numbers, training, discipline and any other considerations the GM deems appropriate. When those 100 heretics open fire on you, some of the shots will eventually go through the armor, hit a vulnerable spot, or simply get lucky. That's the increased damage for you. It is indeed an abstraction, but one that works. Uncapped stats on a 1-100 scale with a linear increase in power doesn't.

And what Natural Weapons a Daemon Prince has, you ask? Why, his clawed fists of course. With certain types of enemies, I am quite convinced that their limbs need not even have spiky appendages to qualify for extra damage, simply because they are so muscular.

It's the same kind of justification that was pulled for allowing the Mono-edged quality to apply to non-bladed weapons. If the game designers say that Mono on a hammer counts as a "pneumatic shock system", then I can say that Natural Weapons on a Daemon Prince counts as its huge muscles that drive its pummeling fists. Same for the Ogryn. And with the Carnifex ... would you even have to ask ?

You say that this use of Natural Weapons is an exception-based design. I say that Unnaturals are an exception-based design, to apply to exceptional characters or creatures that apparently do not fit into the d100 scale that the designers have chosen. And I maintain that my solution is more elegant, because it does not result in a huge array of tacked-on mechanics and power gaps that basically forced the designers to give the Marines better weapons and awkward Horde mechanics, because someone noticed that the Astartes in the "Purge the Unclean" adventure is actually unkillable with his original stats.

For added ridiculousness, a stone hurled by a Space Marine with Unnatural Strength is a more dangerous weapon than an Inquisitor's bolt pistol.

And if it's really just the Strength Bonus damage you're after, I would have simply modified the Natural Weapons trait to come with tiered levels, rather than coming up with a completely new set of traits which require an unnecessarily cluttered explanation to how much they modify which test and what other result, and break inter-game compatibility as an added bonus.

Regarding Hordes, the "exploding dice" issue cropped up again and again on the DW forums, and even HMBC criticised it for this reason. I admit, it's probably not an instakill in most cases - depending on what weapons your Horde uses - but don't you think that the chance for a damage level anything in-between 0 and 33 is a bit ... too random? What happens when your Horde actually does roll all tens?

And as for the abstraction, I suppose it's a matter of preferences. I just find it unnecessary and somewhat ironic that the tabletop is less abstract than the RPG which supposedly aims to depict the combat in a more focused and detailed manner. I just don't like weapon profiles magically switching between "harmless" and "extremely dangerous" depending solely on how many enemies are wielding one. Why is it utterly impossible for 9 people to get that "lucky shot" but as soon as they're joined by another it works out? Apart from the small "problem" that Space Marines should not be that well protected in the first place - but this is not just a question of interpretation, but also an issue of both the system's injury mechanics as well as the Unnatural Characteristics I have accused above.

And yes, Hordes can start at 10 guys, because as you say, Magnitude is abstract.