Technically, meltagun CAN be described as they did in v. 2.0. In essence, it is a gun that fires a burst of highly concentrated and super-heated plasma, which at close range has so high armour penetration rate that it effectively ignores armour completely, but at mid and long range dissipates to just a cloud of your regular plasma. Highly arguable point of view (and personally I prefer the old outlook on meltaguns), but it could be done in this way as well.

The same goes for sniper rifle - yes, it looks (in my opinion as well) silly that a sniper has to spend two rounds to actually make a called shot... but then again, consider how a sniper operates. The sniper rifle is a weapon of precision, but it is a nightmare to aim through a sniper scope at speed (especially if it has a view magnifier). A master sniper might pull that trick perhaps, but your average Man-With-The-Gun will have to take his time to land a shot.

The main problem with the new weapon / armour stats, IMHO, is not that they're broken or unbalanced - they just don't conform the established / historic / fluff / whatever view of how they are expected to work AND they contradict the previous stats we're all used to. Simply put, they feel wrong compared to previous material, tabletop or roleplay.

One (not ideal) solution I see here is for us to stick to old equipment stats as they're shown in OW and BC. Granted, we'll have to attach action points to old weapon profiles, but that's no great challenge I guess

It doesn't ignore armour in the tabletop, adn you told me to disregard the TT rules so I have. But there, they simply get an extra D6 for penetrating armour at close range. Why? Because the melta isn't that destructive on its own, it needs that extra D6 in order to reliably penetrate most vehicle armour.

It does matter! It does as much against an enemy with armour as one without, making the entire concept of armour silly when it's simply a tacked on TB rather then a statistic that requires the players to either be prepared with their own armour piercing weapons or be very afraid of those that have them if they rely heavily on their armour for survival. Now it's simply a boring "you get an extra d10". It takes something i found fundemental to the armoury and not something I'm happy to see go. If anything I was hoping for more options not less.

For the first part I was talking personal armour since we're talking about damage to people, not vehicles and you're discussing vehicle rules. That two different damage systems.

And I'm not sure I understand your objection in the second paragraph. If you're saying that you find the existence of a penetration stat on weapons to be important, I agree with you. The melta, however, is not a shotgun which one can decide to load with armour piercing slug rounds to defeat body armour or load up with Amputator rounds to mangle unarmoured foes and if you've got the wrong ammo for the enemy you're fighting you're in trouble. The melta is a weaopn that slags a Chimera's engine block after blasting through the Chimera's armour, turns a steel door to slag, and turns Stormtroopers into a twisted mass of blackened bone and metal ceramite. It's so utterly destructive it makes the damage versus penetration a nitpicky point (I am a nitpicker). For that debate we should be talking about weapons where the difference matters much more, such as semi-auto combat shotguns loaded with Amputator rounds versus hot shot lasguns.

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.

Lyanta, yeah, GW changes fluff but we kinda have to go with the newest edition, right? If not then space marines aren't supersoldier warrior monks who fight the enemies of the imperium, we could go back to Rogue Trader and make them drugged up convicts doing mercenery work for rogue traders. And the list goes on. Current fluff power weapons dice power armour, not terminator anymore but at least power armour.

Little, yes. But there's enough. Big rulebook for 6th edition on power weapons: "A power weapon is sheathed in the lethal haze of disruptive energy field that eats through armour, flesh and bone with ease". Through armour with ease isn't armor penetration?

Ok, after some examination, I think the way they made the weapons and armor work now sound really stupid when you know what the items should do, but in practice, they are actually pretty well balanced outside of a few oddballs.

I have issues with a few things like power swords, which only seem to exist to screw the players out of gear. Also, some weapons such as plasma, should be far more destructive then what they are compared to say a lasgun.

I believe they tried to normalize all the weapon damage and armor and reduce the variables, but it just seems off because of the lack of diversity in the weapons and the odd thought that a bolter can not penetrate a robe with it's AP alone.

And it is indeed possible they have moved (strangely, due to the complaints regarding it in the past) towards toughness really mattering more than it did before.

It's a bit of a disappointment, especially as I notice that the injury system seems to have taken a clue from GW's own Inqusitor RPG, where Wounds are also non-existent and injuries go directly into "Criticals" as well. I have promoted this idea months ago as an interesting alternative.

Unfortunately, where Inquisitor uses Toughness as a "buffer" between Critical Levels, DH2 still keeps it as a form of natural armour, and this just breaks what could, in my humble opinion, have been a very cool improvement that negates a lot of issues that plagued all of the earlier games in FFG's line of 40k RPGs.

Rules may not need to accurately reflect the fluff, but when it comes to the tabletop, I always found the stats to be an excellent guideline - especially since, often unlike the fluff, they are "neutral" and treat each faction in the same way. That's just my perception, however, and how other franchises such as Battletech deals with it. When you consider that, as per Dan Abnett, the Black Library was founded specifically to separate its stories (which the authors felt could not be told if they'd stick to TT rules) from the core GW experience, and that Black Library novels are still counted as fluff as well, it becomes obvious that the entire franchise suffers from a sort of indecisiveness as to which direction it should move to. GW simply ignoring the obvious contradictions and going on about their business like they did in the decades before may be the smartest way to deal with it. If only the consumers would adapt their expectations...

The majority of fluff "inconsistencies" results not out of changes between editions, but from the inclusion of licensed/outsourced material in people's perception. As novel author Aaron Dembski-Bowden once put it, each book is merely one lense through which we can view the setting. The material is not even meant to provide an "accurate" and consistent experience of the setting, which is why, to now quote Gav Thorpe, there are thousands of overlapping interpretations in the minds of authors, readers, and gamers alike. And none of them is "wrong". Of course, the big problem with this approach is revealed when you throw several fans into one room (or, say, one FFG 40k RPG) and expect them all to have the same interpretation.

For the Sisters of Battle, for example, I will point out that GW never changed those numbers. In the 6E rulebook, there are still only six Major Orders with a few thousand Battle Sisters each, and an undisclosed number of Minor Orders with hundreds of Sisters, or sometimes less.

I'm not sure where the perception of a vast increase in numbers comes from, but my guess would be some licensed product such as a novel. Or FFG's Blood of Martyrs, which had the number of Battle Sisters in the Calixis Sector jump from 50 (Black Industries' Inquisitor's Handbook) to several thousand... And this is just the changes in Dark Heresy fluff!

Oh, I am familiar with the "different perspective" argument, and it is one that works for many of the inconsistencies or differences in tone etc. However, there are sometimes cases where there are flat out contradictions, which have to be taken as out and out retcons (such as the dating of the Damocles Gulf Crusade). Yes, I agree that this isn't some sort of carefully considered move by GW when this happens, and I don't expect GW to really address it when it occurs. Myself, I have tended to become less connected to the setting as GW portrays it, and I am increasingly deciding what my own "canon" is (much of FFG's stuff fails to meet my standard, and a lot of the more gonzo/stupid/ugly units and background produced by GW also fails to make the cut).

I thought there was a statement somewhere that suggested hundreds of thousands of Sisters? Ok,. maybe I am misremembering. However, I do remember the change in the stuff for the Dark Heresy setting... and it is one I would never use in any game I would run in the Calixis Sector. FFG fundementally changed the character of the setting with their various changes, from a "quiet" sector, with lots of mystery and hidden corruption, to a setting where there are massive, public, schisms and civil wars of possibly galaxy affecting scale, and 2/3 major military campaigns being fed from the sector. It is not a change I was in favour of, and is why I am increasingly less interested in any setting material produced by FFG.

It doesn't ignore armour in the tabletop, adn you told me to disregard the TT rules so I have. But there, they simply get an extra D6 for penetrating armour at close range. Why? Because the melta isn't that destructive on its own, it needs that extra D6 in order to reliably penetrate most vehicle armour.

It does matter! It does as much against an enemy with armour as one without, making the entire concept of armour silly when it's simply a tacked on TB rather then a statistic that requires the players to either be prepared with their own armour piercing weapons or be very afraid of those that have them if they rely heavily on their armour for survival. Now it's simply a boring "you get an extra d10". It takes something i found fundemental to the armoury and not something I'm happy to see go. If anything I was hoping for more options not less.

For the first part I was talking personal armour since we're talking about damage to people, not vehicles and you're discussing vehicle rules. That two different damage systems.

And I'm not sure I understand your objection in the second paragraph. If you're saying that you find the existence of a penetration stat on weapons to be important, I agree with you. The melta, however, is not a shotgun which one can decide to load with armour piercing slug rounds to defeat body armour or load up with Amputator rounds to mangle unarmoured foes and if you've got the wrong ammo for the enemy you're fighting you're in trouble. The melta is a weaopn that slags a Chimera's engine block after blasting through the Chimera's armour, turns a steel door to slag, and turns Stormtroopers into a twisted mass of blackened bone and metal ceramite. It's so utterly destructive it makes the damage versus penetration a nitpicky point (I am a nitpicker). For that debate we should be talking about weapons where the difference matters much more, such as semi-auto combat shotguns loaded with Amputator rounds versus hot shot lasguns.

Let's take the description from the book itself then. "These weapons rely on intense heat to negate protective

For the Sisters of Battle, for example, I will point out that GW never changed those numbers. In the 6E rulebook, there are still only six Major Orders with a few thousand Battle Sisters each, and an undisclosed number of Minor Orders with hundreds of Sisters, or sometimes less.

I'm not sure where the perception of a vast increase in numbers comes from, but my guess would be some licensed product such as a novel. Or FFG's Blood of Martyrs, which had the number of Battle Sisters in the Calixis Sector jump from 50 (Black Industries' Inquisitor's Handbook) to several thousand... And this is just the changes in Dark Heresy fluff!

The number is likely to be much higher, simply considering the amount of shrine worlds in the Imperium. Even if there are only 2000 of them, and only 20 sisters per world, that's still 40 000 sisters. Add to that the sisters defending the upper echelon of the Ecclesiarchy (their actual job) and those going on crusades, and you need a lot more than a few thousands. It is therefore probable that there are many dozens, if not hundreds, of smaller orders or Chapters of the different larger orders across the Imperium.

Like any fluff in the 40k universe, sometimes, you have to sit down and reevaluate the numbers so they make sense in a largely uniform galaxy wide empire, and ignore the worst discrepancies.

It doesn't ignore armour in the tabletop, adn you told me to disregard the TT rules so I have. But there, they simply get an extra D6 for penetrating armour at close range. Why? Because the melta isn't that destructive on its own, it needs that extra D6 in order to reliably penetrate most vehicle armour.

It does matter! It does as much against an enemy with armour as one without, making the entire concept of armour silly when it's simply a tacked on TB rather then a statistic that requires the players to either be prepared with their own armour piercing weapons or be very afraid of those that have them if they rely heavily on their armour for survival. Now it's simply a boring "you get an extra d10". It takes something i found fundemental to the armoury and not something I'm happy to see go. If anything I was hoping for more options not less.

For the first part I was talking personal armour since we're talking about damage to people, not vehicles and you're discussing vehicle rules. That two different damage systems.

And I'm not sure I understand your objection in the second paragraph. If you're saying that you find the existence of a penetration stat on weapons to be important, I agree with you. The melta, however, is not a shotgun which one can decide to load with armour piercing slug rounds to defeat body armour or load up with Amputator rounds to mangle unarmoured foes and if you've got the wrong ammo for the enemy you're fighting you're in trouble. The melta is a weaopn that slags a Chimera's engine block after blasting through the Chimera's armour, turns a steel door to slag, and turns Stormtroopers into a twisted mass of blackened bone and metal ceramite. It's so utterly destructive it makes the damage versus penetration a nitpicky point (I am a nitpicker). For that debate we should be talking about weapons where the difference matters much more, such as semi-auto combat shotguns loaded with Amputator rounds versus hot shot lasguns.

Let's take the description from the book itself then. "These weapons rely on intense heat to negate protective

armour" I find it kind of weird that a weapon that supposedly negates protective armour doesn't completely negate CLOTHES. I'd be fine if a power armour provided some semblance of resistance just for balance sake but regular clothes?

The fight where that 1 point of clothes armour ends up saving a PC or NPC from taking any damage from a meltagun is the day the offsett pen and armour values truly come out (granted it will require a poor roll and solid cover).

Remember my argument is that a low Pen on a Meltagun is acceptable if the damage is sufficiently extreme. Nobody is arguing for a dude in cover alls to tank melta shots. I'm just saying that stats that result in a melta having lower pen than previous version are acceptable if, and only if, the melta continues to reduce humans to blackened char and Sentinels into modern art sculptures.

I really think its kinda silly to complain about the pen of a meltagun just because you refuse to consider its use at short range, and make proper use of the Melta quality.

Okay KommissarK, I'll do the sillyness that way as well then. Suddenly cover and what not matters NOTHING AT ALL. Terminator armour hiding behind 14 meters of plasteel or whatever else still takes the same damage as an adept in cloth robes hiding behind a stack of paper. There's no middleground at all. If I was to follow this logic the players would vent a room in a spaceship if they ever missed and the shot went out towards the outer hull.

The number is likely to be much higher, simply considering the amount of shrine worlds in the Imperium. Even if there are only 2000 of them, and only 20 sisters per world, that's still 40 000 sisters. Add to that the sisters defending the upper echelon of the Ecclesiarchy (their actual job) and those going on crusades, and you need a lot more than a few thousands. It is therefore probable that there are many dozens, if not hundreds, of smaller orders or Chapters of the different larger orders across the Imperium.

Like any fluff in the 40k universe, sometimes, you have to sit down and reevaluate the numbers so they make sense in a largely uniform galaxy wide empire, and ignore the worst discrepancies.

Well, for starters, you really can't consider anything because you don't know the "amount of Shrine Worlds in the Imperium". Your 2.000 is a very arbitrary number - I could just as well say there's only 10 and you wouldn't be able to prove otherwise. In essence, it looks as if you are putting the cart before the horse by thinking there need to be lots of Battle Sisters, and then considering ways to allocate them.

Look at page 231 of the 6E Core Rulebook and compare the amount of Battle Sisters mobilising to defend the Cadian Gate to the number of Space Marines, and note by how much the Space Marines outnumber the Sororitas. And this isn't an isolated case, either - check the two force disposition lists for the Third War of Armageddon, same thing.

Note further how the Sisters "actual job" was never described as "defending the upper echelon of the Ecclesiarchy", which would indicate a much more limited yet numerous role (possibly being responsible for your interpretation?) but as defending and policing the Ecclesiarchy as a whole, which means a much broader spectrum of tasks that may well be conducted by a smaller number of personnel, provided they simply are not omni-present.

Which, in GW books, they aren't. To again bring an example, I would point you to Codex Cityfight, where the Cathedral of Bladen - said to be the sub-sector's most important holy site - was defended only by the attending priests and a regiment of Cadians, with the Battle Sisters being a no-show.

The Sisters of Battle have a very long list of possible functions - from policing or safeguarding influential Ministorum officials, to guarding important relics and holy sites, to protecting pilgrim routes, to perform purity control sweeps through other Imperial organisations and the populace, to hunting down renegade Marine Chapters, to provide assistance to the Inquisition's Ordo Hereticus, to fighting in crusades against the heretics within or without. Yet the vast majority of these tasks is not guaranteed to actually have them show up in notable numbers (the 6E rulebook even mentioned single Sisters standing watch over a shrine), or even show up at all, which is a critical point in understanding why the relative scarcity of their appearances in GW fluff actually makes sense and blends in well with their suggested size:

Due to the constant fluctuations between casualties and recruitment (with rather steep requirements on potential candidates), it took the Ecclesiarchy 2.000 years just to step up the number of Major Orders from 2 to 6, with the spread of Minor Orders only beginning in late M38. Why should I assume that in the following 2.000 years there was some sort of membership explosion when there's no indication of it in the material?

My own guesstimate of the Battle Sisters' numbers is at about 100.000, with about 25.000 belonging to the Major Orders (those engaged in the big campaigns), and the rest affiliated with the Minor Orders (those dealing with the local matters as detailed above).

If GW's authors would have me believe that the number of Battle Sisters should vastly exceed this hypothetical number, they are certainly working hard to convince me of the opposite.

But as I said, there are no "hard facts" in this franchise, and even GW studio material is just one possible interpretation of the setting. If you want there to be more Sisters, go for it. I'm merely pointing out that this theory would not be supported by Codex fluff - but I'm certain that various licensed products (including Blood of Martyrs) would be different.

Now, back to the actual topic ...

The Meltagun thing seems weird. KommissarK has a point when he states that it makes sense for this weapon to have a considerable drop in efficiency at longer ranges - yet at the same time I also have to agree that such a crass difference between both damage profiles just looks strange when you consider that they would swap instantly as soon as the threshold is reached. A "softer" drop in damage might look better, perhaps by having the weapon possess more different range levels (at a closer proximity) and have the damage be associated with them to reach a quick but still gradual decline in firepower?

It's just unpleasant and silly. My group is extremely likely to stick with 1st Edition for some time to come, because we felt that the changes to Pen, Armour, and the combat mechanics were neither necessary nor especially welcome.

This has been the overall reaction to the beta pretty much everywhere. I really dont understand how the lead designer is still employed at this point. The response on RPG Codex has made even my most negative review on Dark Reign look positivly fanboyish by comparison. Even a lot of the previously hard core 'FFG can do no wrong' posters around here like my old sparring partner HBMC are lukewarm on this game.

I'm reserving judgment till i get a copy and some time to play, but thus far the reaction looks really bad. D&D 4e bad public reaction, bad.

Lets not Doomsay and remember that this is the Beta- its not that bad. We've been asking for "This" for a long time now. If we bash it to death, then we may never get anything ever again.

Lets work with the system to see how we can improve it to our liking. After all, were all adults.

Not to mention they can't please everybody- already, for example, myself and another poster disagree over malignancies- but, if they decide to go with his interpretation in the final product, I won't swear off FFG's products entirely. It would take the majority of the system going away from my expectations to do that (or at least this product.)

Lets wait and see what they are willing to change and how before we start throwing rocks.

Lets wait and see what they are willing to change and how before we start throwing rocks.

you have a point, and I am reserving my own judgment, but if everything I am reading is true, based on the Beta for OW, I'm not exactly filled with confidence that they'll change anything at all.

I think the thing to consider isn't comparing Pen values between this system and its previous incarnation, but comparing what Pen values could accomplish against the whatever armor in both systems.

See, the thing is ALL armor is balanced within itself, between Max Ab and the AP it provides. This goes for weapons as well, or at least they tried to- Lasguns are objectively better than Autoguns, regardless of the fact that you can jump specialized ammo into Autoguns. I don't really know why Staves are better than Great Weapons either.

However, keep in mind that Boltguns can still pierce the limbs of robes and do full damage. It's fine, because that's what's supposed to happen. It's the chest AP that comes across as whacky. It's also bizarre when Autogun rounds are impeded by Robes.

I think the increased armor with Robes is one of the following:

-Wanting to legitimize the aesthetic of robes in the 41st millenium by giving it a balanced stat-line. Which, really, is fair enough. Having a bunch of guys in heavy armor because it's the best armor deprives the game of having an interesting variety of meaningful, aesthetically interesting and diverse choices. I would just appreciate it if the word "Shield" was put in front of Robes in order to make it canonically accurate.

-Ensuring that everyone has starting protection in the beginning of the game. Judging by the lethality of this game, that's an understandable thing to want to do. However, you have free requisitions during Character generation that, if you wanted to be protected better, you could pick up Guard Flak Armor. Why would you try to rob the players of their choice to be unprotected or protected? For the sake of balance in the Armor system?

That's admirable, but so long as the Armor system exists on a duality (Protection gained vs. Max Agility Bonus) and is striving to be balanced, you really can't have much mechanical variation, let alone accuracy within the reality of the setting.

The solution is simple: incentive-ize armor in a different, meaningful direction. A bonus to Influence checks with a particular organization or something along those lines.

Really, the armory is one of my only gripes in an otherwise amazing game.

It's worth considering that maybe the intention simply is for armour not to be fully penetrated by weapons generally. Even when facing down bolter rounds, realistically you're probably better going into things with some basic protection than totally naked, so that one point or so of left over armour may be fully intentional.

I wish the ridiculous NDA clauses weren't in effect so that FFG could come in and clarify this themselves.

OKAY!

If you read the Melta quality in the beta, when the melta weapon is at half range or less, then the penetration value turns to yes, or 999 to give it a number, now melta weapons have the theoretical highest damage output when compared to plasma weapons, but average damage is higher on plasma...

AP should be adjusted somewhat, and primitive armor and advance armor should return.

I'll wade in with a longstanding issue i've had with previous editions replicated into this, the old 'naked dwarf' problem.

That is the Tougness Bonus.

It is entirely possible that a completely naked character with TB 3 can take a point blank laspistol shot to the face and walk away unharmed, because they have TB 3 which stops all the damage.

I've always favoured the Cyberpunk 2020 view (that has a similar 'body type modifier' mechanic) that, unlike Armour, the TB cannot reduce damage done to below 1.

By doing this with this new version 2 wound system, if your armour doesn't stop the hit you WILL take a wound irrespective of TB.

So:

Currently: Character AP 3, TB 3 hit for 5 damage walks away unscathed. Armour stops 3, TB stops the remaining 2.

Proposed: Character AP 3, TB 3 hit for 5 damage takes a Wound. Armour stops 3, TB stops 1 of the remaining 2, but always lets one through. Had the damage only been 3, the AP 3 would stop it all and none would get through.

Luddite, are you looking at this in a vacuum or is the intent to make automatic weapons even more deadily? With the +5 per wound rule this would boost low damage high ROF weapons even more then they already do by allowing them to easily stack up the wounds needed to destroy enemies.

(The following obviously with a detailed set of House Rules)

Luddite's suggestion here does ring familiar to me. In DH1 (and the other four, for that matter) I House Ruled that Falling, Toxic, Exposure, being On Fire! are reduced by the (modified) TB, to a minimum of 1 Damage. Armour provides no protection vs any of these "non-standard" hits. Even though we are using Wounds scores (remember, I'm still referencing DH1) this goes someway toward a quasi-logical explanation of the body shrugging most of the deleterious effects, but not all. I can't believe I didn't just carry the idea forward to include all hits. (facepalm)

In any case, they way I interpret Luddite's proposal is that TB can stop a majority of the Damage, but never all of it. Essentially, if the target would take 1 or less Damage from any hit, the final Damage calculation is 1.

I'm curious now...

How do poisons/toxins work within the framework of the new injury (it's easier to think injury than Wound) system? Is it still Toxic (X), where (X) equates to a penalty to resistance? Does Toxic then just increase the total Damage output for a hit? If so, this almost seems like a cop-out. Initially I had envisioned Toxic to behave within the new injury system as a by-pass mechanism that is divorced of Damage.

I do not own the beta (yet), I'm simply curious. From what I'm reading, being On Fire! is pretty much the same, except with less calories (atm), and I would assume Falling scales based on distance fallen, but is no different than getting hit with a car. Without being too specific (or vague), is Toxic (and Exposure, for that matter) "old-school" (DH1) or is it something..."fresh"?

Being on fire is not the same at all.

Being on Fire just means you take [Level of Being of Fire] Damage per turn. And by the rules, you soak it with everything you've got. So Armor & TB. People rarely feel it before Burning 7, which, if you might guess, is at least 3-4 rounds after you've gotten burned. And even then, you can act normally and completely ignore if you so choose to do so.

There are no rules for poisons at all. Toxic (x) merely inflicts the "Weakened (X)" state for one round if you fail a toughness - 10*X roll. Weakened is -10 to your stats per level.

There are no rules for being in a Vacuum.

So, on the Armour and Pen issue; would it be worth dumping Pen completely? Considering we have the Melta and Piercing weapon qualities, it may well be worth dumping Pen wholesale, considering it's effectively just extra damage against almost anything but the most pathetic armour, under the new gear tables.

Thank you, Saldre.

So resisting Toxic (X) (per RAW) is just a straight-up Test followed by one Round of Weakened? That seems...too simplistic, weak. Again, not having the beta in front of me, this is merely my impression. As I said, I thought there might be a by-pass mechanism that is divorced from (standard) Damage. I don't know...temporary Characteristic Damage, maybe? At least then (by DH1's mechanism of recovering Characteristic Damage at a rate of 1pt/per hour) it would require some time to recover from the Toxic effects, making it seem more debilitating and less like varying doses of rohypnol.

I understand the "tepid" nature of being On Fire! is already being addressed elsewhere.

Reading through your outline for 'Seeds of Heresy' I see there are still rules for suffocation. No Exposure to vacuum though, eh? Pity.

@ Luddite and Ghaundan- Perhaps if this "minimum of 1 mechanism" were applied only to mooks? If a particular group of Acolytes then favored high-RoF weapons the GM could simply increase the number of mooks in opposition?