In other words, if a Player was playing the Guardsman that was going to get shot by the Commissar, he would rather it not be dealt with as a "narrative event", and even if the Commissar wins initiative, or surprise, or whatever, then it won't matter much in terms of what the scene was supposed to represent.

@Luddite, the problem is that the combat and narrative systems are handled completely separate. If the commissar shoots the guardsman outside 'combat', you're absolutely correct that it's handled by the narrative system and he simply shoots the unlucky sod. However, there's an artificial divide between 'narrative' and 'combat' that states that any 'narrative' action must be completed before 'combat' begins and 'narrative' rules don't resume until after 'combat' ends.

I agree that logically what you're saying is correct, but it's not RAW.

Fundamentally, execution-style kills would be covered by rules for attacking helpless targets. In previous games, this was resolved by basically doubling damage against such targets.

The combat rules must be built on the basic assumption of forces who are aware of, and trying to defend themselves against, attacks, as that's going to be the most common circumstance. Things like sniping, assassination, execution and other forms of killing people who have no means of defending themselves must thus be exceptions to that basic assumption.

My suggested alteration to Called Shot (which could easily be a talent instead) essentially represents an attacker taking the time to try and hit the target properly - not merely a glancing hit or flesh wound, but a deliberate attempt to land the attack somewhere it'll really hurt. It alone still assumes the anarchic furore of combat. The +30 to hit against Helpless targets helps here - using Called Shot for execution or assassination style attacks, that bonus to hit makes lethal strikes much more likely.

Fundamentally, execution-style kills would be covered by rules for attacking helpless targets. In previous games, this was resolved by basically doubling damage against such targets.

The combat rules must be built on the basic assumption of forces who are aware of, and trying to defend themselves against, attacks, as that's going to be the most common circumstance. Things like sniping, assassination, execution and other forms of killing people who have no means of defending themselves must thus be exceptions to that basic assumption.

This has been a popular excuse for this combat system, but the problem with this is the shotgun. Even if you dodge that fraction of an inch or so, you're still getting a face full of buckshot. The other problem is that 'Evade' and all the other possible defensive actions have already taken place by the time that damage is being determined. Effectively the wound table is saying 'I double evade!' and totally ignores the degrees of success you roll with your ballistics test.

The other issue that I take with it is that it's double random, we've already determined the quality of the hit by DoS. To then generate a graze on the wound table feels odd if the hit was solid and the weapon overpowering.

Though with regards to suggestions for combat, perhaps we have been approaching this backwards? instead of adding damage for shot types to get further up the table, why not shrink the tables down from 19 - 24 possibles to 10 - 15 or so, especially removing the "hit and beat defence but still accomplished precisely nothing" results and remove or at least diminish the stacking "wound" bonus to damage rolls.

smaller hits would still add up and take things out with bleed/burning/fatigue and the truly messy results from the far end of the table would be more achieveable for the bigger guns/harder hitters which make more sense to achieve the more spectacular results anyway.

This may require some rebalancing of weapons and armour but that's a more minor tweak than has been suggested so far.

This game obviously requires multiple wounds (hits) to take down even the lowliest of opponents. The Novice-class NPC requires 2 wounds to kill. I would argue that one of the beauties of 1st Ed was that most weapons (especially with righteous fury) could result in 1-hit kills. Not so here.

Except that you'd need much more powerful weapons than the low level norm for one shot kills (excluding accurate).

A standard TB 3 8-10 wound human will walk away from a single las or solid shot round, excluding especially powerful variants, or accurate.

Accurate overshadowed most other things in the old rules (at least by OW) but is really weak now. Seeing as there aren't a lot of weapons with low fire rates without accurate, giving it some kind of damage amp would be good. I really didn't like the way accurate was handled with the old rules, but using it as it was would probably be okay in these rules, though perhaps it should be fewer D10s. The new fixed damage numbers are a lot higher than the old after all.

Snipers are to this day one of the deadliest weapons on the battlefield. Given the right circumstances a Sniper should be One shot one kill against most humanoid targets. Their primary targets are high level officers and leaders so Higher lvl characters should not be immune to this attack! It is also the primary attack of the Vindicare assassin (Who we may see later).

When using a Called Shot Utility Action every Degree of Success on the attack roll lowers the threshold of

Righteous Fury by 1. Two Degrees of Success on the attack? Only need to roll a 8, 9, or 10 to insta-gib the non-master NPC. This also covers heart-shots/shock and the like.

The main probably I see with all of the righteous fury examples is that righteous fury, in my opinion, should be something that cool that happens on a rare roll [01%, or 10 damage]- it should not be reduced to a controllable effect.

A mechanic like that could be introduced as a "Killing shot"- but ultimately speaking, rolling a Fury wasn't about "forcing" one into happening- its about cheering around the table when it DOES happen.

@Luddite, the problem is that the combat and narrative systems are handled completely separate. If the commissar shoots the guardsman outside 'combat', you're absolutely correct that it's handled by the narrative system and he simply shoots the unlucky sod. However, there's an artificial divide between 'narrative' and 'combat' that states that any 'narrative' action must be completed before 'combat' begins and 'narrative' rules don't resume until after 'combat' ends.

I agree that logically what you're saying is correct, but it's not RAW.

Rule Zero applies.

Yes, but a minor hit on that critical table results in a slightly exaggerated effect from the one before it.

It was also a flaw in that system that a heavy critical hit on the leg could result with a loss of an arm the turn after if the next attack hit and damaged a perfectly fine limb. We fixed this by adding a new set of "critical wounds" for each distinct location.

Here the problem can easily by fixed by having "minor hits" - less than your TB for example, result in a gained level of fatigue instead of a wound. And it can easily be incorporated into the system by having the tables themselves say on a 1-8, or whatever "if this hit was below your TB, add a level of fatigue instead of a wound."

Easily, elegant and prevents people from exploding- and it means you draw the line at someones' TB.

Fatigue ends up playing an even bigger roll, and so does Toughness.

Apologies to you all for the double post - i never seem to ba able to make multi-quote in posts work.

I certainly favour tying Fatigue into the core damage mechanic somehow.

Even if armour and ('armoured skin' i.e. Toughness Bonus) stops all the damage, surely the character should be 'winded' or stunned by an attack. Maybe not if in power armour, but we aren't dealing with Astartes-grade MAry-Stuisms with DH2b yet.

I seem to recall in the dim and distant past playing 1st Ed SLA Industries. If my memory doesn't fail me, in that system your could be immune to harm inside some decent power armour, but not immune to 'fatigue' or stuns or whatever. This meant you could be unharmed but KOed inside your armour!

I like your proposed tie to the Wound Effect. I'd even break the proposed Tb link and simply have the 1-6 Wound Effect inflict 1 Fatigue.

Overall, i'm reading a lot of hate for the new Wound system. I rather like it. I've never liked the 'i'm OK, i've got 6 Wounds left' thing. Any hit should potentially mess you up.

One thing i'm toying with for our house rules is to add in WE modifiers other than previous wounds.

Why not give +10WE for head (or any other called location) shot?

+30WE for the 'execution bullet to the brain pan?

There's flexibility to be played with there i think.