All of the first lines on all of these damage tables should read, in addition of what they say right now "If you've just taken less than your TB in damage, you do not add an extra wound but an extra level of fatigue instead."

To me, that would solve a big problem. The biggest problem (to me) is that small hits (less than 5 damage) get upgraded to 5 damage on successive wounds, resulting in (gory) death on the 7th (light) hit. Although taking fatigue is not to be taken lightly, taking 7 fatigue would be infinitely preferable to dying outright. Admittedly, that would put a character close to unconscious, but if his friends can't drag him out, he's got a problem anyway.

I also like it because it would make raw Tb somewhat more influential in keeping a character alive. As is, having a Tb of 3 or 4 does not (generally) make a huge difference. If your Tb + armor doesn't stop the wound altogether, it doesn't matter much what it is (except on that final hit where, admittedly, 1 extra damage will kill you.) When damage under Tb results in 1 fatigue, a lot of the damage you're taking will actually be fatigue. Which is limited by Tb (+ WPb).

Characters with extremely high toughness (85-90 would be expected for high-end PC's) might seem nigh-invulnerable, though. With a 9Tb character, it will take 18 damage to do more than a glancing hit. However, we're talking inquisitor-level characters here, facing powerful enemies. Who cares if they can shrug off a heavy stubber? (actually, I think they SHOULD be able to shrug off a heavy stubber, at least the combat-oriented types - they'd be more like (if not actually) space marines at that level) - they'll be facing foes that wield melta and plasma weapons, who will have talents to enhance their damage.

As for the bolt pistol against the head example: just use narrative and have the enemy die. If it's a master, how did he end up to have a bolt pistol against his head in the first place? If the players managed that, they can be allowed an easy kill at the GM's discretion.

Making this adjustment may require some further modifications to the weapons table though, but I'm not opposed to that.

Yeah, I'm all for weak hits dealing fatigue, it'd help fix things a lot.

Oh, hi!

A familiar face around here... How do you do, Sister Lynata?

Anyway! On to the point (please note that I am speaking mostly in terms of DH 1.0 here as I am not so familiar with 2.0 yet):

I remember you as well. Ave Imperator!

(and no worries, it's the same for me, as far as familiarity with the rules is concerned)

Yeah! When a bullet exceeds the armour value on a location, it can be assumed to have either penetrated or at least caused concussion damage on the body beneath it.

But that's not what I meant - I was referring to damage which gets caught entirely by the armour, exactly like damage which would get caught by TB.

By your opinion, with TB injuries being "narrative injuries", then the armour would have "narrative damage" in the form of scorch marks, bullet holes, missing pieces et cetera (similar to a TB injury causing a scar or a minor bleeding), but you could have your suit of armour be shot at a thousand times, it will not lose its pristine condition, just like a naked person being shot a thousand times will incur no mechanical penalties as long as their TB holds off actual damage.

Whilst I think this is completely okay for armour (I'd prefer otherwise, but I don't see a way to come up with a mechanic that addresses this issue without overcomplicating the game), I can think of no reason as to why it should be the same for TB. It's not like, unlike with armour, there are no good alternatives!

Why would you intentionally adopt a system that is so easy to see breaking down with higher numbers - which are just a matter of sessions to achieve?

Why would you artificially widen the gap between the lightly armoured knowledge-based character and the heavily armoured fighter even further, knowing full well that the latter will start with and put a lot more points into Toughness, and get the best armour?

Why wouly you create a mechanic that ends up with some weapons essentially becoming a "non-threat" for some types of characters, when this is utterly anti-climatic and would feel somewhat weird in terms of the background and realism as well?

I just don't get it. As far as I can see, the problems with this approach have been made apparent in the past. And a plasma or las pistol shot to the naked face should leave something more than "narrative injuries" (sunburn?!).

Also, as far as DH1 is concerned, you had "Wounds" for injuries that do not affect the character's performance. And if you already had these Wounds, what is TB Soak supposed to be, again? The same, just unlimited?

And again, in DH2 such minor injuries are already present in the Crit Table. The really weird thing seems to be that DH2 adopted Inquisitor's Wound-less, entirely crit-based injury model ... but still kept TB where it was in DH1 rather than using it as soak between crit levels. Why this was done is anyone's guess; I'd love to hear one of the game designers talk about that and hear their thoughts/explanations.

Look, I would have prefered myself a completely different damage system but let's just assume that FFG will not start from scratch on damage. So we will have to improve what-is, right?

I don't know - the injury mechanic in DH2 is already wildly different from DH1. I don't see why they couldn't still change it, and I feel the game would be vastly improved for it. The rules as they are set up right now sound unnecessarily complicated whilst still not achieving what I'd personally expect from them ...

And TB is the one thing they kept from DH1. Of all things.

As for house rules .. if I'd use one here at all, I would probably just adopt the Inquisitor-inspired mechanic I suggested here . It would keep TB meaningful and reward "tough" characters (which feels somewhat negated in your suggestion), but without running the risk of turning them into bullet-defying superheroes. When you want Toughness to depict how well you can take an injury, then actually take and cushion it, don't just forget about it altogether!

Weak hits dealing fatigue instead of a wound would indeed be very interesting.

It shouldnt be much though, 1-2 or max. 1-3 on the table would be sufficient.

So it would only occur by quite "soft" hits.

I'd say it'd make sense to work it out based on TB. Maybe TB minus something though, because straight TB could make the range a bit high.

I remember you as well. Ave Imperator!

(and no worries, it's the same for me, as far as familiarity with the rules is concerned)

Ave! I had to grin to myself when I stumbled yesterday across that post in which one of the guys here claimed that he liked the Unnatural abilities because I knew the kind of response he'd get from you! And you didn't disappoint!

But that's not what I meant - I was referring to damage which gets caught entirely by the armour, exactly like damage which would get caught by TB.

Ah, yes. Well, as long as the description is consistent with the 'having no in-game effects', it's all fine.

Why would you intentionally adopt a system that is so easy to see breaking down with higher numbers - which are just a matter of sessions to achieve?

Why would you artificially widen the gap between the lightly armoured knowledge-based character and the heavily armoured fighter even further, knowing full well that the latter will start with and put a lot more points into Toughness, and get the best armour?

Why wouly you create a mechanic that ends up with some weapons essentially becoming a "non-threat" for some types of characters, when this is utterly anti-climatic and would feel somewhat weird in terms of the background and realism as well?

I just don't get it. As far as I can see, the problems with this approach have been made apparent in the past. And a plasma or las pistol shot to the naked face should leave something more than "narrative injuries" (sunburn?!).

A near miss with the heat indeed causing some lightly burnt skin.

Anyway, your problem is that the stacking of Tb and AP can create unrealistic results, especially at higher ranks. But that is the result of trying to make the game not so lethal at low ranks. If they'd give Autoguns et al. more damage (more realistic damage!), this would be less of a problem. So how to balance surviviability in the early ranks against unrealistic effects at higher ranks when damage is entirely based on technology that is widely to be found at every stage of the game?

Well, yes, you can limit the effects of Toughness. But you kinda wanna allow players to be build tough guys who can shrug off wounds with an ease that simply amazes the group's scribe. (Why do I have to think of Batou from Ghost In The Shell now? Dunno.)

Also, as far as DH1 is concerned, you had "Wounds" for injuries that do not affect the character's performance. And if you already had these Wounds, what is TB Soak supposed to be, again? The same, just unlimited?

And again, in DH2 such minor injuries are already present in the Crit Table. The really weird thing seems to be that DH2 adopted Inquisitor's Wound-less, entirely crit-based injury model ... but still kept TB where it was in DH1 rather than using it as soak between crit levels. Why this was done is anyone's guess; I'd love to hear one of the game designers talk about that and hear their thoughts/explanations.

Well, you have to make the Toughness stat, adopted from Warhammer & WFRP & 40K, meaningful. Toughness makes you harder to wound in those games. You gotta keep that, sorry. At least in SOME way. I think the fanbase kinda expects that.

As for Wound Points, while not having a direct effect, they measure the degree of your injury (remember being seriously wounded?) and how close you are to going down, I guess (especially for minor NPCs). Losing 1 WP means you didnt shrug off the attack entirely.

As for house rules .. if I'd use one here at all, I would probably just adopt the Inquisitor-inspired mechanic I suggested here . It would keep TB meaningful and reward "tough" characters (which feels somewhat negated in your suggestion), but without running the risk of turning them into bullet-defying superheroes. When you want Toughness to depict how well you can take an injury, then actually take and cushion it, don't just forget about it altogether!

Yeah, I have seen the post, that's why I said: let's focus on the beta. I dont think you'll suceed convincing FFG to go Inquisitor. They have an interesting new damage mechanic (whereas the wounding mechanic stays the same : damage - Tb - AP)... why don't we focus on getting that to work? I think your hopes may or may not be well-founded but it's kinda unrealistic. As I said, I have a different approach in mind (keeping wound points) and I am sure others do too. It's not gonna happen.

I don't think the purpose of the beta is to trigger a complete overhaul, unless something is found to be catastrophic. The purpose is to tweak, right? And I think the damage mechanic is the most critical part of 2.0 beta. Tied together with weapon stats and so on, of course.

It always is. I remember the debates surrounding Deathwatch very well! They had to bring out an update with completely new damages. (Kinda inspired by my previous groundwork in the forums if I might not-so-humbly add. )

So, ignoring the role of Tb for a moment... where do you come down wrt the question of needing to whittle down elites and master NPCs before being able to kill them? (See: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/88308-inofficial-poll-insta-death-vs-cumulative-death/#entry837834 )

Cheers (well... I play a Scum in DH 1.0),

Alex

As I posted in the lethality thread, I'm not a fan of this at all and certainly won't run it as such.

Oh well, a simple fix for me is to simply do 1d30+ wound level and look that up in the crit chart. PCs and important guys have "wounds" (really, fate / fortune points) that can be used to reduce wound effects (use as little or as much as you want per hit, but can't take a previously suffered effect again (count as the next free effect instead).

Actually I might want to start using these crit tables and this system for all the existing WH40k rpgs. And why not Warhammer (1 or 2) as well.

I was working on this for last edition and I've already posted it in a diffrent thead. As yet it has not been playtested.

Just an idea:

As for weaponry becoming less lethal at higher levels for the sake of better survivability, why not scale weapon damage with the quality of the weapon? If one doesn't want to link it to the quality, it could just be a different pattern of the same weapon that has enhanced lethality.

I haven't tested how easy or difficult it is to damage a higher rank PC yet using skills and talents. Has any tested standard weaponry against high rank PC's?

Howdy

I got a chance to play in the DH BETA adventure run by FFG Tim at Gencon. We had fun. The good , the bad , and the ugly. The good was the new sector content. The bad was the departure from role playing skills, and the non compatible AP system. The ugly was the elimination of a stack of very pretty and pricy DH books as mechanically compatible. The deal breaker is the damage system. What our group has loved since the first edition DH Beta is the way that combat is dangerous and lethal. Guns, grenades, flamers, chain swords, and bolters kill people, so it forced the PCs to role play, use threats of violence, and go into combat with the upper hand or get a new bionic body part for the next adventure. We already have only war and deathwatch, we need combat to be dangerous so that undercover agents of the Inquistion don't have to carry las cannons to actually kill heretics. If you want to have everyone carrying basic and heavy weapons keep the Beta damage system and the days of anyone being under cover are over.

I don't really get where you're coming from. As far as I can tell, characters are taken out just as fast in this system, if not faster.

I also think the deadliness as it currently is, is fine.

It gives that mortal feeling.

Yes, the deadliness is actually pretty good.

The key here is that combat is not overly bogged down because of the novice/elite/master system.

By allowing crits to speed up combat and limiting the bookkeeping on novices being worn down or obliterated by heavy hits you can move things along just fine. But when masters, uncritted elites, or PCs are injured there is some sense of cinematic injury and getting worn down that eliminates flavourless one-shotting on the one hand and meaningless wound erosion drudgery on the other.

The reality is that plenty of things still threaten PCs. yesterday my campaign saw a group of necrophages rush to party to good effect. They would have torn the techpriest apart had the toughest PC not happened to be in power armour and blocked their line of attack. As it was, with the number of blows that landed, any lesser armour would not have stopped the heroic intervention from resulting in a rapid accumulation of wounds leading to death in a single round.

Similarly, a number of sessions ago our psyker received a 4AP hosing of lasgun fire which largely hit and had to burn a FP.

Will a single shot kill a PC or master? Unlikely. But will a PC feel threatened and act accordingly? Oh yes. And can they die in a single round? Most definitely.

=== Edited for clarity ===

I don't like how long and involved the current wound system is. By requiring tracking and damage table application for each actual strike against the character, this rule adds down time to the game through chart reference and calculation.

Personally, I find that disrupts my experience and those of my players and would therefore like a simpler system with fewer steps.

--------------------------------------

I'm very dissatisfied with the system as is. It takes 8 full steps to describe damage and wound effects, and I'm not convinced that all of those steps provide benefit to gameplay. Even comparing this damage system to Dark Heresy 1, you have:

DH1:

Roll to hit (determines hit location)

Determine total damage

subtract defense from damage

If target's wounds < 0, apply critical table effect.

DHv2:

Roll to hit (determines hit location)

Determine total damage

compare to defense. If Damage > Defense, +1 wound (assuming wounds aren't tracked separately for each location)

If wounded, apply wound effect by generating derivative values:

(previous wounds x 5) +

(previous critical wounds x 10) +

(current attack's damage total - location's defense) and apply that to a table.

Previous wounds and previous critical wounds must also be tracked per character, as opposed to simply tracking total wounds from DH 1.

I cannot see any advantage that the new system grants, let alone at the price of additional complexity and record keeping. I'd prefer the original DH damage system for speed of play and elegance.

What advantages have you found for the v2 damage system?

I feel like you're portraying the 2e rules as way more complex than they actually are. In the end, all it is is this.

Roll to hit (determines hit location)

I feel like you're portraying the 2e rules as way more complex than they actually are. In the end, all it is is this.

Roll to hit (determines hit location)

Determine total damage

subtract defense from damage

If any damage is caused, add it to the current damage and refer to table (Current damage will always be a multiple of 5, of course, but I can't see why you wouldn't just track it as a straight number)

Add +5 to current damage, or +10 if you scored a crit

That's all. Not overly complex at all if you stop ogling the maths. I left out Pen, but so did you, so no harm there.

Looking up tables for every attack after 2 wounds is kinda dumb. I feel thats a fairly simple answer hes trying to dodge around saying making it appear as if the system is hugely complex and lengthy.

I definitely would prefer it if tables only popped up on critical hits or something though I guess at that point wounds would be counted in single values rather than the +5/+10 stuff. This is all assuming your following the books encounter building guide of 1-3 elites per fight though.

It is the same as in the old system.

After ~2 WOunds (2*5, which is about the number of hit points in the old system) it goes into critical damage, where you have to look at the table.

So thats not the big change at all.

But now:

a.) this table is deeper and with even more interesting side effects

b.) wounds make an interesting way of balance between "strong" and "weak" weapons.

It is the same as in the old system.

After ~2 WOunds (2*5, which is about the number of hit points in the old system) it goes into critical damage, where you have to look at the table.

So thats not the big change at all.

But now:

a.) this table is deeper and with even more interesting side effects

b.) wounds make an interesting way of balance between "strong" and "weak" weapons.

It's a personal preference thing that people are trying to pretend is some objective fact.

I see the tables getting really boring once we've gone through a few games of it, some people disagree. Theres not a whole lot more to it than that.

I thought the idea of 'narrative' damage was interesting, but I had two big concerns:

The first was the tediousness of digging through pages of charts for every single wound. Even in DH1 , where you only roll on charts when you get into Criticals, it could sometimes slow combat down; rolling for every singe wound, and having to write down each effect... yech...

The second is the fact that the 'hit point-less' system doesn't scale . It might work in a game where all combatants are human, but that's not the case in the 40Kverse. The idea of an Administratum Scribe, a veteran Catachan jungle fighter, a Horror of Tzeentch, a Deathworld plant, a Warp Zombie, a Space Marine, a Hive Tyrant, and a Greater Daemon all rolling on the same set of Wound Effect charts, with only Defense Value differentiating them... That was the main thing that I couldn't wrap my head around...

I feel like you're portraying the 2e rules as way more complex than they actually are. In the end, all it is is this.

Roll to hit (determines hit location)

Determine total damage

subtract defense from damage

If any damage is caused, add it to the current damage and refer to table (Current damage will always be a multiple of 5, of course, but I can't see why you wouldn't just track it as a straight number)

Add +5 to current damage, or +10 if you scored a crit

That's all. Not overly complex at all if you stop ogling the maths. I left out Pen, but so did you, so no harm there.

I laid it out in excruciating steps to present my biased negative perspective on the rules. Removing the term 'wounds' from the equation does make it simpler. The other advantage for this system is that it removes a whole characteristic from play (hit point equivalent). That evens the playing field between 'classes', which is something I applaud.

My issue with this level of complexity is that it doesn't add depth that I can detect, compared with Dh1's system (which I prefer slightly) or a system like Edge of Empire (which I prefer more).

+++Quote+++

+++Quote+++

That is a fair assessment. Since it would be, in theory, for every character within the game something to track and reference. I was trying to lay out *why* I thought it was dumb, by illustrating the steps.

The objective bits are the number of steps taken to perform the rule. My request for a different system is one hundred percent preference, with the goal of a more elegant way to track / inflict damage. I'll alter my post to reflect this.

This is another element of my dislike, which applies to both DH1 and to a greater extent, DH2.

I thought the idea of 'narrative' damage was interesting, but I had two big concerns:

The first was the tediousness of digging through pages of charts for every single wound. Even in DH1 , where you only roll on charts when you get into Criticals, it could sometimes slow combat down; rolling for every singe wound, and having to write down each effect... yech...

The second is the fact that the 'hit point-less' system doesn't scale . It might work in a game where all combatants are human, but that's not the case in the 40Kverse. The idea of an Administratum Scribe, a veteran Catachan jungle fighter, a Horror of Tzeentch, a Deathworld plant, a Warp Zombie, a Space Marine, a Hive Tyrant, and a Greater Daemon all rolling on the same set of Wound Effect charts, with only Defense Value differentiating them... That was the main thing that I couldn't wrap my head around...

Agreed whole-heartedly on the first issue, which is why I started experimenting with creating play-aids, like cards.

Now I need to figure out if I can be bothered to print, cut and sleeve them to test a dead system. Bummer.

On the second point, I found that this was easily solved by modifying the True Grit talent. Make it True Grit(X), where X denotes the "value" of each wound (so everyone would effectively have True Grit(5) as a base).

This scales as far as you want it. True Grit(0.1) should work just fine if you want a marathon encounter.

Am I the only one who really does not like the new wound system at all? I never bothered with any of the sequel games, Dark Heresy and its expansions are really the only games I bothered with.

I felt that the wound pool was easy, simple and effective with the combat system. I do not like the new wounding and critical system and I dislike the advanced effects even more.

As a GM there are too many variables, too many effects and far to much to keep track of easily. More importantly, (this is simply opinion) the less rules the better. I love DH core because combat is easy, fun and quick. Roll to hit, does he dodge or parry? Roll damage, subtract wounds. Next player go.

This new system scares me as it feel like combat will be heavily bogged down in mundane and needless rules. Scales of fatigue, blood loss and more than a dozen affects to players does give a better sense of dread (through game mechanics) but I never had trouble with that because combat has always been terribly lethal.

Sorry for the rant, but I do not like the new wounding system. Once I test play it this week with my groups, I'll know if I'm going to keep it or not.

I thought the idea of 'narrative' damage was interesting, but I had two big concerns:

The first was the tediousness of digging through pages of charts for every single wound. Even in DH1 , where you only roll on charts when you get into Criticals, it could sometimes slow combat down; rolling for every singe wound, and having to write down each effect... yech...

The second is the fact that the 'hit point-less' system doesn't scale . It might work in a game where all combatants are human, but that's not the case in the 40Kverse. The idea of an Administratum Scribe, a veteran Catachan jungle fighter, a Horror of Tzeentch, a Deathworld plant, a Warp Zombie, a Space Marine, a Hive Tyrant, and a Greater Daemon all rolling on the same set of Wound Effect charts, with only Defense Value differentiating them... That was the main thing that I couldn't wrap my head around...

Agreed whole-heartedly on the first issue, which is why I started experimenting with creating play-aids, like cards.

Now I need to figure out if I can be bothered to print, cut and sleeve them to test a dead system. Bummer.

On the second point, I found that this was easily solved by modifying the True Grit talent. Make it True Grit(X), where X denotes the "value" of each wound (so everyone would effectively have True Grit(5) as a base).

This scales as far as you want it. True Grit(0.1) should work just fine if you want a marathon encounter.

Perfect idea.

True Grit (X) could limit wound effects on tougher targets like Space Marines, Mighty Beasts or similar.

In most cases True Grit (4), True Grit (3) and True Grit (2) would be sufficient though.

That could also be the new version of Unnatural Toughness...to blend into the new wound system.

I'd say it'd make sense to work it out based on TB. Maybe TB minus something though, because straight TB could make the range a bit high.

Is the max TB 5?

I like using the straight TB for simplicity, and since passing out from fatigue is a serious threat in combat.

I'd say it'd make sense to work it out based on TB. Maybe TB minus something though, because straight TB could make the range a bit high.

Is the max TB 5?

I like using the straight TB for simplicity, and since passing out from fatigue is a serious threat in combat.

Max TB5 for starting level characters is 4, max bonus is 9.