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?

Hordes are a bit of a problem. The number 1 issue is the fact they are boring, but their damage is probably the second most important issue. The idea is clearly that they are meant to chip away at the characters, but what they tended to do was "2 Damage, No Damage, 2 Damage, Oh, 28 Damage... erm, Critical Damage 5 on the head."

Lynata is actually right that most of the elements of Unnaturals could have been resolved by simply making other changes. Things with extra resilience could have had extra armour, or a note of extra toughness bonus. Things that hit harder could be noted as having a bonus to their damage (I am not convinced of using Natural Weapons as the way to do this, except for those that have inbuilt weapons, as it will not add to wielded weapons, but a note saying "This character adds +x damage too all melee attacks" would be sufficient). If you want to give a straight bonus to checks, then there is little reason not just to give a flat increase to the characteristic. Basically Unnatural Characteristics are a shorthand for doing all of the above, and due to the way they work have certain inflexibility to them. By splitting them up you can gain flexibility , which can also make it much easier to balance things properly. The only thing about Unnatural Attributes that isn't included in anything else is the "bonus degress of success in an opposed check", which 1) was the one that is most difficult to adjudicate on it's mechanical effect 2) there isn't anything stopping it being split into something else on its own.

Still not convinced it isn't a useful thing myself, but I can certainly see the arguments against it.

I am not convinced of using Natural Weapons as the way to do this, except for those that have inbuilt weapons, as it will not add to wielded weapons, but a note saying "This character adds +x damage too all melee attacks" would be sufficient

Ouphh, you're right of course - I completely forgot about that possibility. It could be included in the relevant weapon profile, but I would dislike this roundabout way myself and agree that said note would be a better way.

Alternatively, SB itself could scale differently, adding more damage per point instead of just a 1:1. I mean, the difference between a Strength 20 flimsy old man and a Strength 50 brute from Catachan in his prime years is that the latter does 3 more points of damage when he punches the former? Really, just 3?

It's not that different from the comparison between average humans "wrestling Genestealers", if you think about it.

Come to think of it, I always thought about whether it's truly the best way to have the randomness of the dice be more important than a character's innate ability... and how an approach that focuses on characters' base attributes modified by a smaller dice range would work out. Too boring/linear, or more realistic, or both?

That's probably a topic for a different thread, though.

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?

Hordes are a bit of a problem. The number 1 issue is the fact they are boring, but their damage is probably the second most important issue. The idea is clearly that they are meant to chip away at the characters, but what they tended to do was "2 Damage, No Damage, 2 Damage, Oh, 28 Damage... erm, Critical Damage 5 on the head."

Lynata is actually right that most of the elements of Unnaturals could have been resolved by simply making other changes. Things with extra resilience could have had extra armour, or a note of extra toughness bonus. Things that hit harder could be noted as having a bonus to their damage (I am not convinced of using Natural Weapons as the way to do this, except for those that have inbuilt weapons, as it will not add to wielded weapons, but a note saying "This character adds +x damage too all melee attacks" would be sufficient). If you want to give a straight bonus to checks, then there is little reason not just to give a flat increase to the characteristic. Basically Unnatural Characteristics are a shorthand for doing all of the above, and due to the way they work have certain inflexibility to them. By splitting them up you can gain flexibility , which can also make it much easier to balance things properly. The only thing about Unnatural Attributes that isn't included in anything else is the "bonus degress of success in an opposed check", which 1) was the one that is most difficult to adjudicate on it's mechanical effect 2) there isn't anything stopping it being split into something else on its own.

Still not convinced it isn't a useful thing myself, but I can certainly see the arguments against it.

Borithan pretty much summed up what I was trying to say, which perhaps wasn't too clear in my post above. When I said that "what natural weapons does X have?", what I meant was that, for every creature you design, you'd have to give it its own "special natural damage", be it a daemon prince, a carnifex, or whatnot. Also, as Borithan says, that still wouldn't cover manufactured weapons. So it would be a system where, for each creature, you're creating its own rules, particularly when it comes to damage (hence my referring to it as exception-based design, as opposed to a single rule, Unnaturals, which works the same way for everyone).

I agree that Horde mechanics can be swingy (personally, I'd have added +1D5 damage per every 5 mag, instead of 1D10 every 10, to allow for a greater fine-tuning of each situation), but in my experience, they are an abstraction that works quite well for what it's designed to do (allow minor enemies to be threatening, while the PC's can mow through scores of them at a time without bogging combat down too much).

Righteous fury for Hordes is a non-issue if you use exploding dice, as only characters with Touched by the Fates can get RF under that system (and if you don't use exploding dice and use the BC/OW rules, there are no exploding dice anymore, so again, a non-issue). I assume this is what you mean by exploding dice being a problem, and why I don't see it as too inconvenient. Hordes are dangerous, as they should be.

The unnaturals system obviously has its quirks (like the stone you mentioned), and works best when you use its latest iteration (additives instead of multipliers, 10's on damage rolls cause 1 point of damage if they would cause none), like pretty much any other system, and there are probably better ways to do things (perhaps having SB and TB scale non-linearly as you suggest, which would also reflect the tabletop somewhat better, as a difference of one point of Toughness on TT is actually supposed to be a big deal in terms of what that stat represents). All this being said, I stand by my original point, and the one that goes along the topic of the thread: to me the alternative provided on the new 2.0 ruleset (uncapped stats, no unnaturals) is worse than the solution on the current 40K line (capped stats, Unnaturals).

I think that we're starting to veer offtopic with the discussion pro and against Unnaturals, though, so if you want me to expand something, or you want to speak more on the matter, I'll be happy to continue over private messages or in another thread, Lynata .

It's really weird how there isn't a tech-priest role. Considering how integral that is for the setting, it seems a really weird exclusion.

Sages get Tech Use and Intelligence cheap, they're basically your go-to for traditional techpriests. Chirugeon can also easily apply.

It's really weird how there isn't a tech-priest role. Considering how integral that is for the setting, it seems a really weird exclusion.

Forge worlder - AdMech - Sage.

Covers it pretty well doesn't it?

I agree with a lot of above posts...in general I feel like the creators should take a moment to look at Only War and see what we got very right with that rule set (talents, skills, weapon stats, starting packages, modular classes, sensible advancement) instead of what we see here which is more like someone read only DH 1.0 without reading any other books from the line and tried to recreate from whole cloth (Accuracy damage bonus, meltagun penetration)

The wound system is really not that bad once you use it for a bit.

The system itself isn't that bad, but it does involve more bookeeping than the previous system and performs poorly once different combat styles are involved. The uniform and arbitrary nature of the bonus to wound rolls for every attack just doesn't work when you have high RoF, high damage and dual wielding because it favors some much more than others. As long as dual wielding autopistols (or even shooting them with an autogun) results in faster kills than shooting people with a melta or a plasma gun, the suspension of disbelief between the (currently very much nonexistent) internal balance and the fluff of the system collapses. Everybody knows that bigger, meaner guns = more killy, it's a hallmark of 40k; right now, that just isn't the case. Now, only more dakka works, but somehow, 2 guns, even with less total dakka, still work better.

Not that the system does not need fixes but I wanted to point out that bigger and meaner guns is a hallmark of Warhammer 40,000 which isn't the same as Dark Heresy.

In a gunfight autoguns and autopistols should rule the day while meltas and plasma guns should be expensive, dangerous and cumbersome weapons for specialists against certain targets. Such as armoured vehicles and heavy armoured troops.

I hate the way many rpgs balance weapons with little more than the price tag. The consequence often is that player characters run around with heavy anti-tank weapons when fighting mooks.

Now, I consent that the setting is over the top but I would love if each weapon had it's fair use.

I haven't been able to playtest the rules yet so don't have any solutions but wanted to thow my two thrones out there.

I agree with a lot of above posts...in general I feel like the creators should take a moment to look at Only War and see what we got very right with that rule set (talents, skills, weapon stats, starting packages, modular classes, sensible advancement) instead of what we see here which is more like someone read only DH 1.0 without reading any other books from the line and tried to recreate from whole cloth (Accuracy damage bonus, meltagun penetration)

Talents are done quite well here, save for some off placement on the trees. Skills are by far the best they've ever been, with each finally having multiple, RAW uses. Starting packages and character creation as a whole is pretty solid now, save for some minor tweaking needed due to some odd entries. Everything IS modular now with character creation and advancement now, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there either. I'll grant that weapon stats are a bit off at the moment, but we'll be seeing an update to those in a day or two if FFG is to be believed.

Sages get Tech Use and Intelligence cheap, they're basically your go-to for traditional techpriests. Chirugeon can also easily apply.

Tech-priest is so much more than 'tech use and int advancements for cheap'. The fact that this system doesn't support them any more than that is the failure I keep talking about, there is no flavor in this.... everyone is just a set of stats and advancement costs...

Yeah, they're that as well as all the trappings of their Adeptus Mechanicus background. Which you'd get, when you, well, pick the Adeptus Mechanicus background!

Seriously, I'm not sure how it'd be possible to appease you without limiting character choices to the same extent they were in DH1e. Which would be a step backwards, in my opinion.

Yeah, if the Adeptus Mechanicus isn't a tech priest, I don't know what he's supposed to be.

But the great thing is, while you can play it as a typical Techpriest, the AdMech background also opens the floodgates to things like Skitarii (Warrior), Biologis focused techpriests (Chirugeon), and even more unusual concepts.

It's not a techpriest if it doesn't start with any cool augmetics.

It's not a techpriest if it doesn't start with any cool augmetics.

You use your starting acquisitions to buy those. With the Ad Mech background they're insanely accessible.

Yeah, even without you've got access to average quality limbs, and low quality almost everything else.

It's not a techpriest if it doesn't start with any cool augmetics.

You can start with a mechadendrite. Isn't that roughly what the old Tech Priest started out with?

The old techpriest started out with mechanicus implants (i.e. a fluffy trait that did very little), and that was it. Most of its effects were simply roleplay oriented. IIRC, it only really added a respirator mechanics wise.

So this is actually more of a tech priest than the old one. Problem solved!

Yeah, and you can easily score some bionic limbs and senses at character creation. Assuming you don't consider the +20 to cybernetics availability to apply to character generation. If it does, then you can get basically anything, save for Autosanguine and Maglev coils. I've emailed FFG asking if this is the case, hoping for a reply soon.

Ask and you shall receive, apparently.

Their reply

"1) As written, no they do not. The bonus gives them a bonus to acquiring the items, but does not change the actual availability. So a –20 item is still a –20, and would not be available for the "free" character creation part.

2) Yes, they do stack but as you noted you're doing a bit of russian roulette here. These don't change the item's actual availability, so a botched roll could be very painful.

We're going to look though at both though, especially as we do want players to be able to create some cool tech-priest type characters as part of their origins. Thanks for raising these!"

The old techpriest started out with mechanicus implants (i.e. a fluffy trait that did very little), and that was it. Most of its effects were simply roleplay oriented. IIRC, it only really added a respirator mechanics wise.

Also gave you access to a bunch of unique talents, while restricting you from getting a bunch of stuff (like social skills and psykerisms). But no, OBVIOUSLY this system is better cause you can start with mechanicool arm.

Your previous complaint, that we were responding to was, and I quote: "It's not a techpriest if it doesn't start with any cool augmetics." To which we pointed out that the Adeptus Mechanicus actually get more "cool augmetics" than the old Tech Priest.

Now you are arguing that the new Adeptus Mechanicus role isn't identical to the old Tech Priest and, well, that's true. It's not. I haven't seen anyone claim that this system is, by default, better because you get a mechanical arm. Except for you implying that mechanical arm = better.

You do have a point. You can make some slightly odd combinations in this system, like an Adeptus Mechanicus tech priest guy (ie. starting with the mechandendrite) with the Mystic role. That's one of the flaws of giving the players more options, and should be the duty of the GM to disallow any combinations he doesn't think makes sense for his take on the setting.

The alternative is to make a long list of illegal combinations and imply that you're a bad GM if you think any of them are cool.

But at the same time, role is just xp efficiency now. Just pick the role that fits closest to the style you want, and eat the XP cost for the things that fall outside it.

And thankfully, roles are now extremely modular. Unlike the careers of old, it is significantly easier to create a role that fits well alongside the others. The only thing to avoid is giving it far too optimal a set of characteristics/skills.

I think the Mystic role kinda stands out because it actually gives you some unique capabilities that may or may not make sense in combination with your background. I mean, I'd have trouble approving a tech priest psyker. On the other hand, a skitarii recruit who fled his superiors and was taken in by a local Inquisitor after developing signs of psychic potential might be cool. So it's really a case-by-case thing, but the Mystic can be more troublesome than most of the roles.

IMHO!

(that said, an unsanctioned forge worlder makes more sense than most. I don't believe that Forge Worlds pay tithe to Terra. If anything, they pay tithe to Mars.)

I agree that roles are a little dry as is. I'd argue some gear should be given as part of the role, because background can't really give you anything vaguely optimal for your job.

As for Techpriests now having access to psychic powers and Fel advances? Good! Why limit concepts by enforcing arbitrary restraints on characters? Not every techpriest is a lobotomised robot of a person, and anyone can be a nascent psyker.