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.
Perhaps, with some minor tweaks to weapon Damages...and I do mean minor, meaning not every weapon needs or even deserves such consideration.
Yeah, boost the damage by a point or two on the more penetrative weapons, but honestly with the rules as they stand, Pen is just unnecessary. Unless Pen exceeds armour, it's just effectively boosting your damage roll, and as it stands, Pen rarely if ever exceeds armour. I can see removing the stat entirely being worth it, it'd just take another step out of the math in a fight.
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?
That could work, but then you'd also have to do something to buff singelshot weapons against mooks as they're already subpar due to the 2 wounds regardless of damage taken rule.
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.
Well, generally FFG have nerfed poisons in any game they have created. WFRP they just inflict extra fatigue if you score a critical. Totally underwhelming. "Help! I have been stabbed by the warpstone tainted knife of a Skaven Assassin... Oh, I feel a bit tired for a while, and will probably feel fine after the end of the fight."
D'oh! It just hit me why Armour values were 'flattened' (to use Plushy 's term) and Penetration drastically neutered. Defensive Value! Since Armour and Toughness Bonus are now grouped together as a single stat (DV), that can make it tricky to tell at a glance how much Armour a character is sporting- and Penetration should only effect Armour, not Toughness Bonus. Thus, the designers decided to 'flatten' Armour values, and reduce penetration far below it's depiction in the 40K fluff, so that you won't really have to pay attention to whether or not Pen exceeds Armour within a given Defensive Value. It seems to be a recurring design principle of the new edition to simplify as much as possible, and that "a point or two either way doesn't really matter...".
I can understand the logic behind DV, but I hatehatehate the new Armour/Pen values; my suggestion would be to list Armour Points in parentheses after the DV, to indicate the maximum effect that Pen can have. Hence, a character with Toughness of 35 and wearing Flak Armour would have a DV of 7(4) in the torso; then, you could go back to reasonable Armour and Pen values, while being able to tell at a glace that 'Pen exceeding 4 counts as 4' against this particular DV.
Thoughts...?
Edited by Adeptus-BPersonally i really like the idea of the new wound mechanism. But its clear there are scaling and balance issues with the interplay between damage done, armour penetration, armour value, toughness bonus and wound effect.
Laspistol Dam 1d10E
So, shooting a laspistol at a naked target (TB3) you don't even wound unless you roll a 4+ BUT to inflict a wound effect you need to roll:
HEAD = [WE] 9-10
LIMB = [WE] 10
BODY = [WE] cannot inflict any wound effect
This is even before you figure in armour or start to worry about penetration.
Messed up? I'd say shooting a naked person in the chest with a laspistol and being unable to do anything except...
'leaving him gasping for breath and unpleasantly warm, but otherwise mostly unharmed.'
...has some issues!!
Although...come to think of it...
I think comparing 2nd edition with 1st in regard of damage and Armor Penetration is quite weird as they are hardly compatible.
So many things have changed that it is hard to make a straight comparison.
EXAMPLE: A sniper rifle lost the extra damage from accurate, but its base damage is now 1d10+10, up from 1d10+3. Just because the extra damage from Accurate was so **** much does not mean that in old Dark Heresy it was the same bloody thing and a sniper shot to the head would not kill a baby. (Remember, in 1st edition rules Accuracy did NOT add any damage, it was errataed later).
Long-las lost 1 point of penetration in exchange for +5 to damage and the Overcharge special ability.
But let's go back to our basic laser pistol, shall we? It is true that 1st edition LasPistol had a whooping 1d10+2 damage, so having 90% change to wound a naked man. However, 2nd edition las pistol has a RoF of 1. Meaning you could use 2 or 3 AP to shoot 2 or 3 times.
This do not help you much with wounds as the wounds from the same attack do NOT give the +5 each, so you will just inflict little damage 2 or 3 times, BUT: 1) now the target has 2 or 3 wounds, meaning the next time he get shot, he suffer +10 or +15 to his wounds results. Assuming he is Elite or higher, cause if he was a minion, he is dead. Killed by LasPistol, how is that for a flashlight now, eh?
2) rolling damage 2 or 3 times doubles or triples your chance of Righteous Fury, which downright kills anything less than a Master. Granted, the las pistol prolly will not wound, so that does not do much, but IF it does wound, now the Elite is dead.
So, with the las pistol we went from Dark Heresy 1st edition, where killing a man with it was quite difficult and based entirely on luck to 2nd edition where killing a man with a las pistol is quite possible and much more dependant on your skills (need to hit the guy with 2 or 3 DoS). Of course we are speaking of the random bloke around the corner here. If he is not, then you might want to use something a tad heavier than the pewpew toy gun you have there, champion....
BOLT WEAPONS
Again, straight comparison is difficult. On paper, they seems all slightly worse off. Beside maybe the heavy bolter that lost 3 points of AP and 1d10 to gain a +10, leaving it quite comparable.
The Bolt pistol is the easiest, it is worse. It was reworked as a close quarter weapon, as it should be to be honest, but it has worse everything, besie being really good to use in a melee.
Your vanilla bolter lost 2 points of AP, gained 1 damage and gained RoF of 1, making it much better at auto fire than before... as it should be. Much easier to hit a bloke twice or thrice with the new rules, so improving the lethality of the bolter, yay!
Storm bolter did not exist in basic 1st Edition, so let's forget it.
Heavy bolter lost 3 AP and 1d10 and gained a +10, leaving it about the same. The RoF is quite the same. Had a full auto of 10, now it has a RoF of 3. In both cases, using 1 AP, you would hit for about 3 bullets when lucky. The remaining 7 bullets from the full auto 10 were most likely wasted.
Now, though, you have a choice. If you are a crack shot, you can use 2 or even 3 AP and lose less bullets than before with same results.
The 1d10 + 10 is almost always better than 2d10 for damage and the Tearing quality makes sure you get a decent amount of Righteous Furies.
MELTA:
Yeah, massive loss in AP unless you are in short range, but what is this? +10 meters of range?? Close range of the melta gun is 15 meters VS the 20 meters of Dark Heresy 1st edition, is that really such a massive change to cry a river over?? Meltas have always been short range, anti armor weapons and so are here. Only change is that now you have the choice to use it as slightly longer range with not so high penetration abilities. I would say that 2d10+4 with AP 3 is still a massive hard hit for anyone. With a RoF of 1/2 you could even potentially shoot TWICE with it
ARMOR
Here is where the complaints have merit, in my eyes. The armour table is just very weird currently. It says somewhere that different armor might protect differently against different type of damage, which makes a lot of sense. I would see Flak for example very effective against lasers and not so much effective against Rending, but there is no sign of this anywhere.
Enforcer armor has -20 availability Vs the -10 of Flak, lose 1 Armour point almost everywhere just for 1 more AB? With an AB of 5, the flak is good enough for most characters and only special individuals will ever need the Enforcer... (and even then, only starting from Rank 3) not to speak of the Mesh which is even worse. has availabilty -30 still protect LESS than flak, but oh wow... AB 8!! Or hey! go Carapce, at a masssive -40 availability you expect golden interior and massage-enabled shoulder pads, but no! you get 1 point more protection in the chest and 1 less AB from flak. for 30 points of availability I expected something more, to be honest
Also what is the point of the Body Glove? Does it add its number to other armor? If not I do not see the point of it as it has same protection as a robe, but a difference in availability of 50. Its description seems to be missing so I expect it WILL add its defense in addition to whatever armor you are wearing... maybe with some limitation or have some other nifty special ability... or something!
Edited by volkmar
I would say that 2d10+4 with AP 3 is still a massive hard hit for anyone. With a RoF of 1/2 you could even potentially shoot TWICE with it
Except it just doesn't matter. My bigger problem isn't with the weapons, but with the Wounds system itself. The damage just doesn't really matter. Novices take 2 Wounds to kill. Sure, a GM could houserule it so that 18 points of damage kills a Novice in 1 hit, but that's not how the system is designed. Besides which, the 18 points of damage makes no difference at all for the next wound the critter takes. It's still only going to be +5 per previous wound.
And lets look at non-Novices. All that extra damage is just lost on the next hit. Whether I do 11 points on the Wound Effect Table or only 1, the next wound they take will still only have a +5 modifier on it. Quite possible to follow up a Wound Effect 11 with a Wound Effect 6 glancing blow. And the third hit is just at +10, which of course could result in a Wound Effect 11 again. High damage is only ever helpful if a character is already suffering +15 or +20 from previous effects, where suffering 12 more damage might produce a Wound Effect that actually kills them. Unless you're using a high-rate of fire weapon, getting those 4 previous wounds might take a while!
Additionally, multiple hits = +5 WE +5 WE +5 WE, etc. This IS cumulative, so 3 hits that do 1 point of damage and 1 Wound add a +15 to the next person's attack, whereas 1 hit for 15 points only adds a +5. In addition, high RoF increases the odds per attack of scoring an insta-kill Righteous Fury... even if the attack would only do 1 point of damage on its own merits, after defense is subtracted. Obviously, higher WE have greater Conditions attached to them. But in terms of ending a fight any faster, weapons with lower Rates of Fire are not the way to go regardless of the Pen or static damage modifier connected to them. Cuz ultimately +5 per Wound means you want quantity, not quality.
Edited by VaeronUnless you're using a high-rate of fire weapon, getting those 4 previous wounds might take a while!
Actually, not quite. If the email I got directly from Tim Huckelbery is to be believed, an attack only ever inflicts one wound effect.
"Keep in mind that multiple hits from the same attack do not each gain a +5 on the wound result table for wounding strikes though (if I read you right). It's only +5 per attack, no matter how many wounding hits that attack caused."
"Keep in mind that multiple hits from the same attack do not each gain a +5 on the wound result table for wounding strikes though (if I read you right). It's only +5 per attack, no matter how many wounding hits that attack caused."
That makes a pretty significant difference. Interesting.
"Keep in mind that multiple hits from the same attack do not each gain a +5 on the wound result table for wounding strikes though (if I read you right). It's only +5 per attack, no matter how many wounding hits that attack caused."
That makes a pretty significant difference. Interesting.
To be fair, that e-mail (if it was the same one you mentioned earlier, Tom Cruise), seemed incredibly poorly written, and honestly caused more confusion than it alleviated.
I don't think we should assume too much about what he meant until we get a clarification.
That's true. I'll send off another one asking for a clearer answer. For clarity's sake, here's the email in full.
Edited by Tom CruiseHi Ross! Thanks for the suggestions. We're indeed looking at both of these areas, so check the errata updates starting next week on them. These all look interesting.
Keep in mind that multiple hits from the same attack do not each gain a +5 on the wound result table for wounding strikes though (if I read you right). It's only +5 per attack, no matter how many wounding hits that attack caused. Multiple hits can get you multiple results on the wound tables, but they don't grow more deadly from hit to hit within the same attack. (If I didn't understand you properly here, please let me know!)Thanks for writing Ross and participating in the beta. Feedback like this can ensure the best possible Dark Heresy, and I'm really excited for this to be the best rpg FFG has ever done.
Ah, here we go, clarification at last.
Hi Ross! Yeah, my wording wasn't too clear.
In each attack, any wounds caused in that attack do not add +5 to results looked up results within that attack. They only use any pluses the target had from previous attacks, but each one does add +5 or +10 for RF rolls to they can add up to make the next attack pretty nasty.
In your example, the autogun attack would add +15 to the next attack's results. But each result looked up in that autogun attack would only use any pluses from any previous attacks; you would not add +5 to the second wound result, then +10 to the third wound result.So working out a series of attacks:Attack #1 causes a wound. Target is at +5 to next wound table result.Attack #2 causes three wounds. Each is looked up with +5 to the table, and after this target is at +20 on table results.Attack #3 causes one wound, with +20 on tableThis help? And no worries on asking for clarifications, this really helps us to make a better game. Everything is obviously clear to us, having been involved with it for a long time now, so it's vital we write rules for everyone else who isn't sitting around the office here immersed in it
That was much clearer - and exactly how we were already reading the book. Personally, I'm not so worried about this - I think Nimsim's calculations indicate that high-damage single-shot weapons are probably fairly balanced with high-RoF weapons. My only real concern there is the increased chance of Righteous Fury (which is a big deal).
Thanks for sharing, Tom Cruise!
Sharing the impression, that Pen and Armour should be balanced at slightly higher numbers.
This would allow for more variety and therefore also more chances for realistic approaches.
I reckon the problem has been mostly fixed by the new update.
I must say that I agree with Millandson. I've started running a parallel combat test, one with old rules, one with update 1 - the update 1 one is looking much better.
I would say that 2d10+4 with AP 3 is still a massive hard hit for anyone. With a RoF of 1/2 you could even potentially shoot TWICE with it
Except it just doesn't matter. My bigger problem isn't with the weapons, but with the Wounds system itself. The damage just doesn't really matter.
I understand what you're saying, but I think "it doesn't matter" is a bit of a stretch. So you're using a sniper rifle and you inflict 18 points of damage. The wound result ranges from a crippled limb, to blindness and Int decay, to being knocked prone and possibly dazed. That isn't nothing, that's a severe limitation on what that person is going to do next. If I'm an acolyte fighting an Elite enemy, I'd much prefer he be prone and unable to react rather than just doing a dent to his wounds that has absolutely no effect until he reaches crits.
I have yet to play 2.0 with my group, but I get the feeling that these wound tables are much more lethal than people give them credit for. In first edition it sucked to go into crits not because it meant you were near death, but because you started getting stunned, fatigue, blood loss, etc. Now that happens much sooner, and if you get stunned in the middle of a battle you're pretty screwed unless your team has your back. And if the Elite you're fighting gets stunned or knocked prone they're as good as dead if the rest of your cell gangs up on them (or at the very least they'll rack up an even worse wound effect).
I have yet to play 2.0 with my group, but I get the feeling that these wound tables are much more lethal than people give them credit for. In first edition it sucked to go into crits not because it meant you were near death, but because you started getting stunned, fatigue, blood loss, etc. Now that happens much sooner, and if you get stunned in the middle of a battle you're pretty screwed unless your team has your back. And if the Elite you're fighting gets stunned or knocked prone they're as good as dead if the rest of your cell gangs up on them (or at the very least they'll rack up an even worse wound effect).
I completely agree with this. Look at Impact hits to the body for an example: you aren't actually killed until you reach 31+ critical damage, but even a 16 critical damage hit [Dazed and Weakened(2) for 1d10-Sb rounds] will severely handicap your character.
Edited by Covered in WeaselsDon't forget that death also occurs at fatigue = 2 * (WP + TB). It matters with things like Blood Loss (which stops ticking down its condition value when you go unconcious, so it will kill you in (WP+TB) turns unless you are treated).
Given how common fatigue is going to be at the early tiers of damage (as well as actions the player/npc willfully undertakes like sprint), its pretty obvious that at the higher tiers of damage that Blood Loss condition is going to be troubling. Also remeber, unlike Burning, Blood Loss is healed by degrees of success, not removed completely. So a high Blood Loss condition will still potentially kill a character, even if they are being treated.