@Colm33

Would not the change to an unarmoured human being killed easily be handled by the way taking 2x defence score = death for novice class NPCs?

If you want that for PCs, I have to disagree. Due to their fated nature, PCs/Elites/Masters are luckily never struck dead on by shots until far into a combat. Yes it skews realism, but it represents the hand of fate in the setting.

@KommissarK

I'm not asking for perfect realism, indeed allowing toughness soak a place in the system means that you are making humans far more resilient than real life. It's also fair for a PC/elite/master to survive an attack that would kill a mook. When your PC empties half his bolt-pistol clip into the cult leader's head and has him survive battered with a concussion, however, that is a problem. Human(or human-esque) elite/master enemies have not gotten where they are in the setting by walking through firefights and killing everything themselves. They've got to their positions by being clever, having people do that for them, and generally placing themselves out of danger. If they get hit by a plasma bolt and survive, fair enough, but it shouldn't be a case of them making some heat related pun before returning fire. They should be in a lot of pain, probably thinking about fleeing and getting medical attention, and plotting the PCs imminent demise. Getting into a fight with the PCs should be a mistake that they regret.

Likewise, the PCs should not be walking around and triggering ambushes or unnecessary fights, relying on their soak to negate most of the damage. The price for not planning ahead and picking fights carefully should be serious injury or death. Fate is not a refractor field or power armour, it is something that might save their life, IF AND ONLY IF they don't push their luck. They might make a dodge that they would otherwise have failed, by spending one of their fate points from a limited pool. If they stand in the open and constantly disregard the dangers posed by their enemies, though, then yes, they should die, fate or no fate.

> Being hit multiple times is a BAD THING and should hurt RIGHT NOW, not when the weedy hive-worlder next to you decides to punch the enemy and winds up stealing what should have been your kill. Allowing wounds within the same attack to add +5 or +10 towards the next wound table result caused by the attack is far more sensible than the current system, and while that change alone will not fix the beta it will go further than just about anything else towards doing so. Removing the flesh wounds from the wound tables is also something that should, in my not-so-humble opinion, be done. Yes, it will make the system a lot more lethal, and yes it's almost unfair to have a well thought out character die in a single hail of bullets, but that's what 40k is supposed to be. A lethal, unfair and uncaring universe. That's the appeal of it. The ENTIRE POINT in fact.

My opinion after a quick read through is more or less in line with this. Combat remains deeply flawed though some of balance and more absurd issues have been addressed, there's still the problem of the GM having to be able to see the future to have rolls 10 and down make any sense with whatever gets rolled next. It is marginally better than simply being 'bruised' but still has that stumbling block of 'I need to be a psyker' to have the results make sense in narrative.

The 'exploding humans chain reaction' is still quite possible and people on fire still seem to inevitably explode.

I am in agreement with colm33 (sorry that i have no comment on the math related stuff earlier in the thread my eyes kind of glaze when i start reading about the math behind system mechanics) the weapons are better but the crit tables are still alowing for crazyness. I know there is some disdain for traditional HP systems but we already had the ability to make combat cinematic through descriptions from either the players or the gms heck there are probably fan suppliments out there for those players and gm's who are not as cinematically inclined. I guess what im saying is it seems we are trying to reinvent the wheel when the old wheel works just fine.

It would be great to get comments on our comments from the developers sometimes.

Would feel close to the community and would show if some discussions we do very passionately is worth being continued or if the topic is already cancelled at FFG.

Just a short "Great idea, would be great to hear more"

or an

"we already considered this, but it is too hard to implement at this stage...blahblah" ;D

or an

"GauntZero - You really ARE so awesome !"

Would be awesome ;D

A couple of comments.

1. I think the penetration values are too high for most weapons. I think penetration should be reduced or, alternatively, armor values could be increased. In most cases where a high penetration weapon is involved the target may as well just be naked, because armor does absolutely nothing to increase survivability. I would like a power armor to be a big deal in battle, but currently most weapons with an availability below 0 will have no problems penetrating a power armor (by causing a combined damage and penetration of 9 or higher). High penetration should be reserved for armor piercing weapons with low damage – weapons such as melta and plasma should just have higher damage ratings. Power armor would not help much against a plasma blast, but it should help more than being naked. And if a plasma blast have the power to melt metal it should easily be able to burn flesh as well.

2. I think that the current wound effect tables make it too hard to kill a master or pc opponent, and way too dependent on causing many wounds. I would prefer it if:

- Highly damaging attacks caused more wounds than barely damaging attacks. For instance if an attack caused a wound for every full multiplier of their defense value. So if a character with a defense of 8 (3 toughness and a flak armor) was hit for 26 damage it would cause 3 wounds. This could also have an interesting interaction with penetration, if penetrating weapons reduce the defense value of an armored target.

- There were fewer “levels” of damage in the wound effect tables. For instance 10, 15 or 20 levels instead of 30. It would reduce the importance of the number of current wounds (a good thing) and would make massively damaging weapons more dangerous (a good thing). If the number of levels is decreased the effect of wounds (+5/+10) should also be decreased.

- Degree of success should affect damage. An opportunity is to roll one d10 pr. DoS and choose the best die/dice for damage (just like tearing). This would increase the crit. chance for well-placed shots (a good thing) and make accurate weapons more powerful (a good thing). Alternatively just use a fixed number, such as +1 damage pr. DoS.

- Elite NPCs were killed if they received damage greater than three times their defense value.

3. Agility is too powerful. I like that RoF for swords are based on weapon skill instead of agility, but I still think that agility needs to be changed a bit. Skills such as medicae should be based on intelligence and not agility. Nimble needs to go, or at least be changed (for instance: a character with nimble and a higher agility bonus than toughness bonus adds 1 to their toughness bonus when calculating defense values).

4. I think that the mechanics does not really reflect that “ Inquisitors do not chose their Acolytes at whim. The player characters in Dark Heresy are a cut above the rest of humanity, and fated for a greater destiny. Because of this, the player can re-roll any one characteristic value but must keep the second result.” A single reroll is not sufficient IMHO to reflect character who are chosen as the best among millions if not billions. I think that a range of different options for starting character power would be nice. Either just a guide to the appropriate amount of XP to give different characters of “different levels of starting power”, or let the character start with substantially higher characteristics than the average citizen of the Imperium. Alternatively an optional rule with a different number of rerolls could also be used for different levels of “starting power”. Such as “best of a hundred” giving 2 rerolls, “best of a thousand” giving 3 rerolls, and “best of a million” giving four rerolls, or something like that.

Can we just say inflicitng twice a targets defence score inflicts a critical wound?

Maybe have a talent like True Grit ignore this mechanic?

Can we just say inflicitng twice a targets defence score inflicts a critical wound?

Maybe have a talent like True Grit ignore this mechanic?

Good idea !

I also liked the idea in another thread to sum the effective damage of multi-hits for 1 wound instead of several.

In combination with your idea this would mean in an example:

Rufus fires a automatic salvo with his Autogun (1d10+3) and scores lucky 6 hits that are not evaded:

His target has Defense 3 Armour + 3 Toughness = 6

a.) Current system:

He scores 3 single hits and rolls: 1, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 9 --> (+3) --> 4, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 12

This means he has 4 hits that are not soaked completely, which make 4 (!) wounds with effects 2, 3, 5 & 5 (each no effect)

b.) Proposed System:

Same rolls, but unsoaked is added together: so he does only 1 wound with 2+3+5+5 = effective 15 (he will feel that)

As this is also more than double defensiv evalue (6*2=12), this wound would be critical.

Also positive: only 1 hit location to determine.

Only check for RF once (first bullet to hit), if succesful, receive an additional critical wound.

GauntZero - You really ARE so awesome !

If now also my often repeated +1 Damage per 2 DoS (per 1 DoS if accurate) at Called shot would also be granted I would be really happy

Then automatic and called shot would both be interesting options.

I don't understand why you'd take a general rule (Storm) and replace it with a specific rule within the rules for a single weapon. Now every time you want to use the same rule for a different or even a similar weapon, you've got to write out that special rule again and keep writing it out every time you re-use it (rather than just putting 'Storm' into its list of qualities). The same would apply to Smoke.

Better to have a general rule in the main rulebook to avoid having to do that, no?

BYE

I don't understand why you'd take a general rule (Storm) and replace it with a specific rule within the rules for a single weapon. Now every time you want to use the same rule for a different or even a similar weapon, you've got to write out that special rule again and keep writing it out every time you re-use it (rather than just putting 'Storm' into its list of qualities). The same would apply to Smoke.

Better to have a general rule in the main rulebook to avoid having to do that, no?

BYE

I actually agree with this. I love most the improvements to the rules, but this one left my head scratching. What if you need to put down the Godwyne Bolter which is storm bolter, but with a better design pattern? What if some tech priest converts a bolter, or some other gun to have storm quality?

I'm wondering why, generally, a regular sword is better than a chainsword for carving up unarmoured people...

Needs some thought, I think.

I'm wondering why, generally, a regular sword is better than a chainsword for carving up unarmoured people...

Needs some thought, I think.

Huh?

It isn't. They're exactly the same damage (which isn't that far-fetched), but the Chainsword has tearing, so will tend to do better.

I'm wondering why, generally, a regular sword is better than a chainsword for carving up unarmoured people...

Needs some thought, I think.

Huh?

It isn't. They're exactly the same damage (which isn't that far-fetched), but the Chainsword has tearing, so will tend to do better.

With the Update, the sword adds Sb to damage, whereas the Chainsword adds it to Pen instead. That means that the sword does more damage to unarmoured people.

Oh, wow, you're right. Sorry. I had even double-checked. I was sure they both added Sb to damage now.

I agree that doesn't make sense. Add Sb to damage for both and they'd be fine in my opinion.

With the Update, the sword adds Sb to damage, whereas the Chainsword adds it to Pen instead. That means that the sword does more damage to unarmoured people.

Which makes... no sense at all

Oh, wow, you're right. Sorry. I had even double-checked. I was sure they both added Sb to damage now.

I agree that doesn't make sense. Add Sb to damage for both and they'd be fine in my opinion.

Yeah, basically, if a Chainsword was a regular sword with Tearing, it'd be great.

I'm wondering why, generally, a regular sword is better than a chainsword for carving up unarmoured people...

Needs some thought, I think.

Huh?

It isn't. They're exactly the same damage (which isn't that far-fetched), but the Chainsword has tearing, so will tend to do better.

With the Update, the sword adds Sb to damage, whereas the Chainsword adds it to Pen instead. That means that the sword does more damage to unarmoured people.

Average value of a 1d10 roll is 5.5. Thus average sword damage is 6.5 + SB. Average value of a 1d10 tearing role is 7.15. Thus average chainsword damage is 8.15 with SB pen. So, by those numbers, anyone with an SB of 2 or higher will deal more damage per hit with a sword.

But raw damage per hit isn't what kills someone. Instead things die from:

- The number of damaging hits. The chainsword gets high roles more consistently. So if the low rolls can't get through the targets toughness, the chainsword can deal damaging hits more reliably.

- Some enemies die to any critical wound. Tearing gives the chainsword a 19% chance to RF, dealing a critical wound, while the sword only has a 10% chance.

- Cumulative wound penalty. Which will be higher from a chainsword because it deals more critical wounds.

So the break even point for unarmored will be higher, and complex to calculate.

The difference, however, becomes more pronounced with higher strength scores.

Suggestion re: Rate of Fire for melee weapons. This can make slower weapons more useful at higher WS levels.

The quicker weapons, such as swords, should be WSb - 3. Now, that means a character with 50 WS gets 2, a character with 40 gets 1. Okay. However, it should also mean a character with 30 WS gets 1/2, and one with 20 WS gets 1/3.

Slower weapons, such as shock mauls, should maybe be WSb-4. A character with 50 WS gets 1 attack. A character with 40 gets 1/2. A character with 30 gets 1/3. A character with 20 gets 1/4.

The extremely slow weapons, like power fists, could be WSb-5. A character with 50 WS gets 1/2 attack. Character with 40 gets 1/3. A character with 30 gets 1/4. A character with WS 20? Get a different weapon.

As it stands, characters with a high weapon skill should always, always use a power sword, which makes me wonder why so many folk with skill want power fists.

The difference, however, becomes more pronounced with higher strength scores.

True. Against unarmored targets the chainsword does better with low (SB-target TB), sword with high (SB-target TB). But where is the threshold where they switch over ?

And how often are you going to run into unarmoed enemies where that matters ?

By matters, I mean cases where the sword will reliably kill an enemy in one less hit than a chainsword. Which means a case where the sword can reliably kill something that has a wound modifier of +20 from previous injuries, but the chainsword can not.

I still think it's strange that you can't charge into combat and use an Evisceration in the same turn.

BYE

Isn't it possible to start your charge in one turn and finish it in the other (like an extended action), if you do not spend any AP for anything in between ?

If so, you could delay your first action (the charge) until shortly before your second...

In general I feel that update 1 is good. :-)

I think that power swords and chain swords should shift around bonuses, so power swords scale penetration with

strength and chain swords scale damage with strength.

I dislike that RoF scales with abilities for some melee weapons. Fix the RoFs to some constant numbers, like 1 for swords and 2 for knives, or something. If melee needs more options for RoF reintroduce swift attack as a talent to alleviate this. I think I could live with some small damage weapon, like knife, scaled on RoF but then neither on damage nor penetration.

I think it is OK that some weapons scale on penetration while others scale on damage. It is more useful to scale with damage than penetration, so that has to be kept in mind. If it becomes too difficult to balance just put it all in damage bonus.

I absolutely love that different abilities are used for the scaling on different weapons. Makes much sense.