Not all melee weapons deal Strength Bonus extra damage now. This is odd, and somewhat silly.

Compare a knife to a fist. In reality, I'm much more afraid of the knife. In the grim darkness of the 41st Millenium, the pugilist is the real threat. The knife does 1d10-2 damage. The fist does 1d5+SB damage. If the average fella has 30 Strength, then the fist does 1d5+3 damage.

That makes the maximum damage with the knife 8, and the maximum damage on the fist also 8. The minimum damage on a knife is 0, while the minimum damage on the fist is 4. The safer bet is the fist! If the character specialises in melee and has a higher Strength (let's say 40, which is easily possible at character creation), then his fists will deal between 4 and 9 damage, while the knife will always deal 0 to 8 damage.

This also makes it so that a Great Weapon (or an Eviscerator) swung by an Ogryn will deal the same amount of damage as one swung by a child.

While this change doesn't effect Chain and Power Weapons, its still a very strange and unnecessary one.

Yeah, every RPG I've ever played, and scarily it's a lot, have strength bonuses on melee weapons, it just makes sense.

Yup. I guess they tried to introduce a notion of certain flexible weapons being more about finesse than brute strength... but in all honesty, damage from being cracked by a whip differs in magnitude depending on just who is holding that whip.

And by the Dark Gods, why the Great Weapon is invariably Impact (especially if we consider that the Warhammer is a separate entry)? No Great Swords / Axes in the far future anymore?

Removing SB bonuses from melee weapons is daft. My wife always play im gonna kill you with this spoon characters and that she cant put muscle behind that spoon just makes me sad.

Removing SB bonuses from melee weapons is daft. My wife always play im gonna kill you with this spoon characters and that she cant put muscle behind that spoon just makes me sad.

Some still have it, just not:

Chainblades or Eviscerators

Great Weapons, Knives, Improvised Weapons, Staffs/Staves, or Whips

Force Staffs/Staves

Electro-Flails

or Hunting Lances

There is some precedence in the table top for chain weapons having a fixed strength rather than being effected by the user, so I can see that.

And you could argue (on slightly shakier ground) that whips don't really need to take strength into account (as said above).

Not really sure about the rest of them. Hopefully it's just been overlooked/misprint.

I can imagine that some other ability bonuses could come in use, like Agility for a weapon that requires finesse rather than strength, or perhaps even perception bonus if the weapon is reliant on the user being able to spot weak points.

I can imagine that some other ability bonuses could come in use, like Agility for a weapon that requires finesse rather than strength, or perhaps even perception bonus if the weapon is reliant on the user being able to spot weak points.

That's not a bad idea at all. Imagine if the accurate trait meant after an aim action you got to add your perception bonus to damage. It would make them feel more unique like they were in DH1 and give perception more to do, as it was always one of the weaker stats (although DH2's wider skill use is certainly helping with this).

I can imagine that some other ability bonuses could come in use, like Agility for a weapon that requires finesse rather than strength, or perhaps even perception bonus if the weapon is reliant on the user being able to spot weak points.

This is genius and would quickly fix this problem.

Or maybe locational damage bonuses? I remember Cyberpunk 2020 used to have double damage to all head hits. So a called shot to the head would inflict a more damaging wound due to the sensitive nature of the head organs.

I will try my best to explain the reason some close combat weapons do not benefit from added SB.

First, take everything you know about the previous 40K RPGs' core combat mechanics and throw it in the garbage. Forget it all.

Copy/Paste from a related topic (bold font is my contribution to that topic):

In previous iterations of AP, TB, and Pen values, it had been said that weapon Damage was based on its effectiveness against an average TB 3, and that is why the Autogun profile listed 1d10+3, with the +3 specifically intended to negate TB 3. Using this as a base, some weapons were then weaker (Las-pistol at 1d10+2). Armour then provided the majority of protection-relatively speaking- these values were high compared to the remainder of the Damage a weapon was capable of causing. Armour was in turn mitigated by Pen values, which were between just less than to just more than half of the average AP values.

Perhaps this time around they have come at the subject from the other direction?
There is some AP remaining after reduction for many of the Pen values, but not much, and this may have been intentional- though it amounts to negligible figures and they may as well have said "weapons penetrate armour", and we'd be better off not using AP and Pen values at all- one negates the other. Of course, it may also explain why some close-combat weapons benefit from the addition of SB while others do not. I suspect we haven't fully divined the nuances of the scaling structure of the new system.

What we have left are Damage values that have been reduced from those listed in previous game lines so that they reflect what the weapon alone is capable of doing to a PC with a TB 3 AND the new AP values, but without intentionally scaling it to oppose TB 3 and then referencing that weapon as a basis for modifying other weapons. The Wound mechanic has then been altered to jibe with this new "mystery" scaling.

I'm still on the fence about the Wound system. I need more feedback from the forum before its structure gels.

EDIT- Compiling items from previous comments:

we have a set of weapon special qualities that either halve armor or Toughness Bonus on a hit or ignore armor altogether

Decreasing the penetration scores isn't necessarily bad. The higher the Pen value, the less importance armour has with respect to Toughness. If Pen goes down but damage goes up, then the overall performance of the weapon is about the same but the importance of armour goes up and the importance of Toughness decreases.

Example:

Some dude with TB 4 and 2 points of leather armour. Against a bolt gun that does 1d10+5 with AP 4 he's going to take 1d10+1 damage (Tearing)

Against a 1d10+7 AP 2 Boltgun he's going to take 1d10+3 damage (Tearing)

An IG wearing full flak (which in some fluff actually provides a little protection from some bolt weapons) is TB 3 Armour 4- against vanilla bolt gun he'll take 1d10+2 (Tearing) and against the other he'll take 1d10+2 (Tearing).

The damage is the same but instead of taking less damage because of his beer belly, he's taking less damage because of the cerametal implants in his Cadian pattern flak armour

[page 207] To determine the wound effect, the character takes the total damage dealt by the hit (damage value minus defence value) and adds modifiers for each wound s he was suffering from prior to the attack:

Wound +5

Critical wound +10

So, if we ignore the errant "S" at the end of "Wounds" word (highlighted) and read the rule as it was probably intended, we get +10 to wound effects from EACH critical wound and +5 - from each regular wound. Which in turn means that two critical wounds to any given location practically guarantee character's death after a third wound, as the wound effect score of 29+ invariably kills.

The wounds overhaul idea as such, IMHO, is therefore good and sound.

It gelled. Hopefully by compiling these statements I have helped others to divine the nuances of the scaling structure of the new system.

RoF still needs to have another look (or six).

I can imagine that some other ability bonuses could come in use, like Agility for a weapon that requires finesse rather than strength, or perhaps even perception bonus if the weapon is reliant on the user being able to spot weak points.

I agree, the system requires that a modifier exist if the item is to do damage reliably. If not, than your 1d10 knife won't reliably damage anyone wearing anything more protective than a robe, which is neither logical or fun for the stabber.

Yup. I guess they tried to introduce a notion of certain flexible weapons being more about finesse than brute strength... but in all honesty, damage from being cracked by a whip differs in magnitude depending on just who is holding that whip.

And by the Dark Gods, why the Great Weapon is invariably Impact (especially if we consider that the Warhammer is a separate entry)? No Great Swords / Axes in the far future anymore?

Maybe Flexible weapons should get Agility Bonus instead of Strangth Bonus? Makes kinda sense to me.

I'm told (this might just be a rumor) the reason was there are only so many rolls on a d10, so they felt the melee system needed more possible results rolling on the horribad wound tables.

I am not quite sure I understand- everything is doing less damage, so people can better hit the lower side of the table?

I am not quite sure I understand- everything is doing less damage, so people can better hit the lower side of the table?

Basically. Remember that melee weapons by and large have better pen than ranged weapons as stands, so figuring in SB on everything means that the lower results on the table are just so much spilled ink.

I'm told (this might just be a rumor) the reason was there are only so many rolls on a d10, so they felt the melee system needed more possible results rolling on the horribad wound tables.

Dunno if you're quoting me there from our discussion on Dakka but if so I'll clarify that it's not even a rumor -- just 100% pure speculation on my part.

But, but, but...

In my current DH game, players SOAK. They raise TOUGHNESS! Lots of it. Repeatedly. They wear armor. Mooks AND sometimes bosses hurt them for 1 constantly. Which on, that table, has no effect! Except causing you to get higher on the table!!!!

Furthermore, this table is only used on PCs and bosses!!

So basically, the immediate "House-rule" fix for this is to add + STR for most melee weapons, add +Obs for weapons with accurate, and add +Agi for weapons with flexible.

Furthermore, give back accurate its extra D10 per two success for every Aim action taking. You took THREE aim actions in one turn and rolled like 6 Degrees of Success? Congrats, Thats likely a kill. Even if the mook has two wounds.

Dunno if you're quoting me there from our discussion on Dakka but if so I'll clarify that it's not even a rumor -- just 100% pure speculation on my part.

On your part, yes, but so far you're not the only person to say that.

AND sometimes bosses hurt them for 1 constantly. Which on, that table, has no effect! Except causing you to get higher on the table!!!!

Why all the exclamation points? Even 1 damage is a wound that confers +5 on the table. So if you're current PCs are taking 1 again and again on DH1E combats, that's understandably bad considering it's just eating away at their HP bank. In DH2E, each of those one damage hits one of only about 6 they can take at most.

In DH 1, people could get up to 19 hit points relatively easily. The way healing worked- not to mention Psykers, and talents like Hardy, meant that people could heal up awfully quickly too as long as they didn't hit criticals.

I do agree that 1 damage inflicts +5 on that table- but he's saying, well apparently a lot of people are saying, that everything that does less damage so that the space on the start of the table gets hit on more often than not.

But all hitting that space is move you up higher on that table on the next hit. It has absolutely no effect.

Not to mention there's such a wide variety of enemies and weapons, that SB should not be the limiting factor towards it. I personally don't think thats the real reason, because it strikes me as a far-fetched reason.

Seeing as it only applies to PCs, elites Masters, anyways. Monsters can always lower SB if you want the table to get hit on earlier- and when players hit a master or an elite, you want to encourage cool effects [if not, you can raise your armor or TB accordingly.

My point is, the mechanisms to hit the low of that table are already in place in Terms of TB and SB, which allow a sort of control and modulation. Removing SB makes it a lot more random.

But all hitting that space is move you up higher on that table on the next hit. It has absolutely no effect.

Sorry, I don't follow. Getting a low result on the wound table does impart effects. As I just posted in another thread, you can immobilize your target on a leg shot with an energy-based weapon rolling as low as 7, so long as you get DoS higher than the target's WPb. I guess what you mean is that range of 4-8 damage where there is no wound effect? But of course, with +5 modifiers on hits from subsequent attacks, it only the first or second hit that will implicate that range.