We're getting a bit off-topic but I would like to point out that a human having 80-90 strength without augmentics / warp mutations doesn't make much sense to me. There should be a cap IMO.

The stats loss is not a fun mechanic but I believe it should still happen sometimes. Getting a hit on the head that almost gets you killed should leave marks... Some professionals boxers would know about it .

The problem isn't that some hits are near-misses from time to time, but that the first three or four hits always are near-misses against elites and up.

Did you feel this way about any of the WFRP2e-based games? Or about any other "gritty" RPGs? Because I distinctly remember this issue being even more pronounced in every RPG with a Hit Points-equivalent that I've played over the last 20-odd years... Absolutely including DH, RT, DW, BC & OW.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I'm just not used to anyone outside my own group not wanting their system of choice to in practice operate as if the first 5+ injuries each combatant suffers didn't happen.

Personally I favour systems where suffering an injury has 0 chance of killing the combatant outright (assuming a straight fight), but where every injury is potentially incapacitating, and at least will require medical attention in the immediate future.

DH1e kind of works if you play it without hit points & leave out the last couple of crit results. I imagine you can do the same in DH2e.

I think it is a problem in WFRP2E as well. The problem is not as pronounced, since you "ignore" hits from swords, not anti-tank weapons.

I know plenty of games with some sort of hit-points that does not have this problem. At least not nearly as bad. RuneQuest, GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, Over the Edge, nWoD, Unknown Armies, and HERO are all good examples from my bookshelf.

What I am not satisfied with is is the 1-10 on the players table, which do nothing but waste a round in combat.A hit that has no effect but to setup the next hit. Wooooo.... \

But it does do something. It provide a brief, momentary in-character warning to the players that they're in danger. It's their "first strike" and it lets you give them a feeling of danger without suddenly maiming them. Well, unless they get maimed.

The DH system provides a small buffer but attaches a little flavour and occasional minor impediments to damage within that buffer. What's the choice of other options? Go back to a "hit point" approach where your DH1-approach buffer just whittles down and down until *suddenly* you now start getting injured by the bullets? Or abandon the notion of buffer and suddenly every blow or impact is causing a significant impairment of the PCs functioning in the fight? Neither is good to me as short atmospheric window of opportunity for PCs to extract themselves from a bad error of judgement on their part (or luck) at limited cost. Which is what the current system is.

We're getting a bit off-topic but I would like to point out that a human having 80-90 strength without augmentics / warp mutations doesn't make much sense to me. There should be a cap IMO.

The stats loss is not a fun mechanic but I believe it should still happen sometimes. Getting a hit on the head that almost gets you killed should leave marks... Some professionals boxers would know about it .

Yeah, I'd like to see a cap on attributes. Mind you, to get the maximum possible +50 in total advances to an attribute, the PC needs to have reached Rank 10 which is 270 hours of game play according to recommended guidelines or 67 four-hour sessions.

How about the total number of advances for all characteristics may not exceed three times rank and no single characteristic may have more than Rank advances to it. That way you *could* do ten advances to a single attribute, but it would be hitting you badly elsewhere.

The problem isn't that some hits are near-misses from time to time, but that the first three or four hits always are near-misses against elites and up.

After which point, you've worn out the target, burning through their stamina and their luck, making that telling blow more likely with every passing moment.

40k is a setting of lethality, yes... but it's also a setting of surviving against the odds, of a handful of protagonists battling against the encroaching darkness. Look at the wargame - for its entire history, there have been a few models in every force who can take far more punishment in game terms than they have any logical right to - that multi-wound captain who is physiologically no different to the rank-and-file around him.

Lasting injuries depict the consequences of violence. Lethality is dull, because lethality has only one long-term consequence - an end to that character's participation, and a new character in their place. Lingering wounds are much more interesting, and consequently more desirable.

It's not the lethality itself that is fun. It is the concept of facing death, the risk involved, and then pulling it off. As for survival itself, that's what fate is for and lethality can be easily callibrated through this mechanic. Besides: frequent lasting injuries get boring soon enough. (And if we want to wear down targets, we can simply use a D&D style HP-system with a damage threshold for lasting injuries.) Not to mention that it's laborsome to administer multiple injuries.

DH 1.0 was quite deadly for many players, especially at Rank 1 and that's why many players liked it. Acolytes arent Space Marines. They are way more fragile. Nor are they Inquisitors or any other character model; at best they are on their way to legend. To begin with, they are one of the few nameless, faceless members of an Inquisitor's retinue.

But all of this is misleading. If you favour cumulative damage in the release as heavily as you have been doing so far in the beta, DH 2.0 is going to be a tough sell, I think. Suspense of disbelief. My 2 cents only.

Alex

For me, it's a matter of degree. Cumulative damage with no effect in a game like D&D damages realism badly. You take a hundred blows and then you suddenly go from fine to unconscious.

In DH2, that "cumulative damage" might be a couple of minor hits and which could potentially leave you dazed, blinded or on your arse in the middle of a gunfight. That to me, doesn't have the same negative effect on immersion or tone.

If ever anyone pins a character down places a meltagun in their mouth and pulls the trigger, then I'm not going rolling on the Wound tables. In the middle of combat with everyone running and jumping around? I don't have a problem describing a glancing blow or partial burn.

Similarly I'm finding it vaguely ridiculous to suggest that DH2 is not still incredibly dangerous because you can get a couple of hits in on a PC before they start falling apart. The moment they walk in on a Hive gang by mistake, or any other group, they can easily take several hits in a round. Heck, one automatic weapon going all out can do it. DH2 remains a very dangerous game. It just gives you a TINY buffer for you to adjust tactics in if you're in trouble. Stupid players still die. Smart players are slightly protected against random happenstance.

The one idea that captured my attention the most in this worthwhile thread has been - instead of the +5 for any attack that gets through, why not just accumulate the damage that gets through the Defensive Value, however small or much that is? It's the simplicity of it & the perfect 1:1 granularity with damage taken that seems so right with it.

If one point got through TB + armour, that is perfectly represented by the one accumulated point to add to the next Wound sustained for purposes of the Wound Effect Table. If ten points got through then ten is added to the next Wound sustained for purposes of the Wound Effect Table.

In this way, one could have kept the old Righteous Fury rules, granting a qualified exploding damage die. Though perhaps FFG wanted to get rid of those Righteous Fury rolls to streamline things.

If a character takes four hits where 1 damage gets through on each, then they have 4 accumulated damage points for adding to the next Wound sustained for purposes of the Wound Effect Table - not 20 like the the 2e-beta currently has (4x(+5)). The Wound Effect Table may need adjusting for suggestion, I'm not sure.

Really, I'm curious why exactly they didn't pursue this path given it's simple elegance in addressing accumulated damage.

For me, it's a matter of degree. Cumulative damage with no effect in a game like D&D damages realism badly. You take a hundred blows and then you suddenly go from fine to unconscious.

In DH2, that "cumulative damage" might be a couple of minor hits and which could potentially leave you dazed, blinded or on your arse in the middle of a gunfight. That to me, doesn't have the same negative effect on immersion or tone.

If ever anyone pins a character down places a meltagun in their mouth and pulls the trigger, then I'm not going rolling on the Wound tables. In the middle of combat with everyone running and jumping around? I don't have a problem describing a glancing blow or partial burn.

Similarly I'm finding it vaguely ridiculous to suggest that DH2 is not still incredibly dangerous because you can get a couple of hits in on a PC before they start falling apart. The moment they walk in on a Hive gang by mistake, or any other group, they can easily take several hits in a round. Heck, one automatic weapon going all out can do it. DH2 remains a very dangerous game. It just gives you a TINY buffer for you to adjust tactics in if you're in trouble. Stupid players still die. Smart players are slightly protected against random happenstance.

You have just touched on one of the major flaws of the DH2 combat system: A full auto weapon of any type can instantly smoke a character. A Sniper weapon (Which is supposed to be a precise instrument of death!) Cannot! You can't have it both ways! A Sniper weapon or a heavy single shot weapon (Like a missile launcher) Should at least have the potential to waste a PC outright! Not that it will happen every time but that it could! Pc's should fear those situations where the enemy has contracted an assassin to deal with them! They should at least pause when facing an emplaced anti-tank weapon! 40k is dark and it's scary. If players of acolyte level characters can play like they "Know no fear" then something is VERY wrong!

There is a reason they had to add damage to accurate basic weapons in DH 1.0: people were complaining about sniping not working iirc. This was an issue of immediate lethality also.

I would like to pose a question to the people in the pro-cumulative damage camp : Don't you feel the beta shifts the balance too much in favor of cumulative damage? A single previous wound turns a Boltgun hit into kinda a Heavy Bolter hit? Really?! A single critical wound turns a Boltgun hit into kinda a Meltagun hit...

Don't you feel that +5/+10 is too much? I feel FFG in general isn't conservative enough when it comes to modifiers (and too conservative when it comes to lethal weaponry, see Deathwatch rulebook). Smart player will use modifiers in ways unforeseen by the designers... that's why it's best to be light on that.

If you run the numbers in comparison to weapon damages, then +3/+6 or +3/+5 seem a much better fit.

Alex

You have just touched on one of the major flaws of the DH2 combat system: A full auto weapon of any type can instantly smoke a character.

...

What? No, they can't. They can set players up to be in a really bad place for the next hit (which is what knasserll was getting at - a Hive Gang all going at you is likely to get in several hits in one turn), but it's not going to "instantly smoke" you.

The fastest way to kill someone right now is to have one character fill them up with Wounds from a high-RoF weapon, and then have another character make the kill-shot with a high-damage single-shot weapon.

Similarly I'm finding it vaguely ridiculous to suggest that DH2 is not still incredibly dangerous because you can get a couple of hits in on a PC before they start falling apart. The moment they walk in on a Hive gang by mistake, or any other group, they can easily take several hits in a round. Heck, one automatic weapon going all out can do it. DH2 remains a very dangerous game. It just gives you a TINY buffer for you to adjust tactics in if you're in trouble. Stupid players still die. Smart players are slightly protected against random happenstance.

Compared to high-level D&D, it is true that DH2 pretty deadly. DH2 is very undeadly when compared to almost all other games I know with a detailed combat system and characters that are basicly humans.

You have just touched on one of the major flaws of the DH2 combat system: A full auto weapon of any type can instantly smoke a character.

...

What? No, they can't. They can set players up to be in a really bad place for the next hit (which is what knasserll was getting at - a Hive Gang all going at you is likely to get in several hits in one turn), but it's not going to "instantly smoke" you.

The fastest way to kill someone right now is to have one character fill them up with Wounds from a high-RoF weapon, and then have another character make the kill-shot with a high-damage single-shot weapon.

What they mean is that with multiple hits, you can kill someone in a single round with a full auto weapon. E.g. take a character with a good BS and give them an autogun. Conceivably they could score four or five hits against a target, each causing a wound, and result in one-round death. I don't have a problem with that - as I wrote earlier, I want the possibility of the possibility of instant death. As a GM, I know what I am doing if I suddenly throw a high BS opponent with a fully automatic weapon against unprepared PCs.

The oddity is that they seem to be claiming that you can't also kill someone in a round with other weapons. You can. Grab a meltagun and go all out - you get a couple of hits and it's quite possible that you've killed your opponent in one round just the same.

On the one hand they are criticising the system for not allowing instant lethality, but yet it does.

Similarly I'm finding it vaguely ridiculous to suggest that DH2 is not still incredibly dangerous because you can get a couple of hits in on a PC before they start falling apart. The moment they walk in on a Hive gang by mistake, or any other group, they can easily take several hits in a round. Heck, one automatic weapon going all out can do it. DH2 remains a very dangerous game. It just gives you a TINY buffer for you to adjust tactics in if you're in trouble. Stupid players still die. Smart players are slightly protected against random happenstance.

Compared to high-level D&D, it is true that DH2 pretty deadly. DH2 is very undeadly when compared to almost all other games I know with a detailed combat system and characters that are basicly humans.

So in absolute terms, DH2 is very deadly (a PC being set upon by two hive scum with stubbers and dying in a round qualifies, thankyouverymuch). But compared to other games that are really, really deadly, it is only so-so?

That's a weird argument and entirely dependent on you personally deciding that some other super-deadly game is the benchmark.

I don't know on what planet DH2 can be called "very undeadly", but it's one way beyond the reach of the Astronomicon.

You have just touched on one of the major flaws of the DH2 combat system: A full auto weapon of any type can instantly smoke a character.

...

What? No, they can't. They can set players up to be in a really bad place for the next hit (which is what knasserll was getting at - a Hive Gang all going at you is likely to get in several hits in one turn), but it's not going to "instantly smoke" you.

The fastest way to kill someone right now is to have one character fill them up with Wounds from a high-RoF weapon, and then have another character make the kill-shot with a high-damage single-shot weapon.

What they mean is that with multiple hits, you can kill someone in a single round with a full auto weapon. E.g. take a character with a good BS and give them an autogun. Conceivably they could score four or five hits against a target, each causing a wound, and result in one-round death. I don't have a problem with that - as I wrote earlier, I want the possibility of the possibility of instant death. As a GM, I know what I am doing if I suddenly throw a high BS opponent with a fully automatic weapon against unprepared PCs.

The oddity is that they seem to be claiming that you can't also kill someone in a round with other weapons. You can. Grab a meltagun and go all out - you get a couple of hits and it's quite possible that you've killed your opponent in one round just the same.

On the one hand they are criticising the system for not allowing instant lethality, but yet it does.

Maybe I'm missing something here...

No matter how many hits you do in that first burst, if the target is unwounded all of those hits will have a +0 modifier on the Wound chart. Unless one of those hits does 30ish damage (which a few can, but is generally unlikely - especially with the high-RoF weapons), they're not going to kill anyone.

The second guy with the autogun, shooting at the same target as the first, might waste him. But a guy with a Sniper Rifle could do the same, and is actually more likely to (because a single, strong hit is going to go higher on the Wound chart).

Or are we talking specifically about Novices?

You have just touched on one of the major flaws of the DH2 combat system: A full auto weapon of any type can instantly smoke a character.

...

What? No, they can't. They can set players up to be in a really bad place for the next hit (which is what knasserll was getting at - a Hive Gang all going at you is likely to get in several hits in one turn), but it's not going to "instantly smoke" you.

The fastest way to kill someone right now is to have one character fill them up with Wounds from a high-RoF weapon, and then have another character make the kill-shot with a high-damage single-shot weapon.

What they mean is that with multiple hits, you can kill someone in a single round with a full auto weapon. E.g. take a character with a good BS and give them an autogun. Conceivably they could score four or five hits against a target, each causing a wound, and result in one-round death. I don't have a problem with that - as I wrote earlier, I want the possibility of the possibility of instant death. As a GM, I know what I am doing if I suddenly throw a high BS opponent with a fully automatic weapon against unprepared PCs.

The oddity is that they seem to be claiming that you can't also kill someone in a round with other weapons. You can. Grab a meltagun and go all out - you get a couple of hits and it's quite possible that you've killed your opponent in one round just the same.

On the one hand they are criticising the system for not allowing instant lethality, but yet it does.

Maybe I'm missing something here...

No matter how many hits you do in that first burst, if the target is unwounded all of those hits will have a +0 modifier on the Wound chart. Unless one of those hits does 30ish damage (which a few can, but is generally unlikely - especially with the high-RoF weapons), they're not going to kill anyone.

The second guy with the autogun, shooting at the same target as the first, might waste him. But a guy with a Sniper Rifle could do the same, and is actually more likely to (because a single, strong hit is going to go higher on the Wound chart).

Or are we talking specifically about Novices?

I think you are correct and I am wrong. The rules state that you apply a +5/+10 for wounds / critical wounds existing prior to the attack. I had been treating each "hit" as an attack, i.e. resolve first, if you get a wound it counts toward the next roll, etc. Therefore multiple hits would quickly rack up even within the same BS roll.

But re-reading I think it's actually the entire attack as stated. Which means you're right - there's no inconsistency with weapons with high rates of fire. Which is a good thing - there's no loophole where a low-power automatic weapon can kill someone but a meltagun could not.

I suspect RedWraith has made the same mistake that I did.

So in absolute terms, DH2 is very deadly (a PC being set upon by two hive scum with stubbers and dying in a round qualifies, thankyouverymuch). But compared to other games that are really, really deadly, it is only so-so?

That's a weird argument and entirely dependent on you personally deciding that some other super-deadly game is the benchmark.

I don't know on what planet DH2 can be called "very undeadly", but it's one way beyond the reach of the Astronomicon.

Earth is one such planet. On earth people can be killed by head-shots from sniper rifles.

I also find it very unlikely that two hive scum could dispatch of an unhurt PC in a single round in DH2. It might be possible, but it would require some very lucky rolls from the GM.

I don't know what game you use as benchmark where DH2 is very deadly in comparison and the characters are supposed to be humans with no supernatural powers?

I would also be happy if you would refrain from making fun of my arguments. You may not agree, but they are in no way as silly as you present them.

Can we get the debate back on track please, guys? The beta test phase isnt that long and while I enjoy reading everyone's opinion here, I'd like to stay focussed on the actual issue of tweaking the beta. Or not (finding that it is good as-is.).

Is +5/+10 too much? Is it just about right? Or too low? (Of course changing these values would mean FFG would have to overhaul the critical tables or change weapon damages also... not sure if they want to do bigger revisions at the beta stage...)

Alex

So in absolute terms, DH2 is very deadly (a PC being set upon by two hive scum with stubbers and dying in a round qualifies, thankyouverymuch). But compared to other games that are really, really deadly, it is only so-so?

That's a weird argument and entirely dependent on you personally deciding that some other super-deadly game is the benchmark.

I don't know on what planet DH2 can be called "very undeadly", but it's one way beyond the reach of the Astronomicon.

Earth is one such planet. On earth people can be killed by head-shots from sniper rifles.

As they can in DH2. The point, that I made earlier and repeat now, is that the problem is that you are saying it is a headshot in contradiction of what the rules tell you has happened. You roll the dice. It tells you that a glancing blow has happened that leaves blood pouring into your eyes and temporarily dazed and blinded. But you are disregarding this and saying "they survived a headshot from a sniper bullet". Again, as I wrote earlier, you can object that the rules don't allow you to pull off the fatal headshot right away (although they do for anyone but a PC or a Master level opponent), but it's wrong to phrase that criticism as if it is a flavour problem which creates a unjustifiable and unrealistic scenario (shot in the head but not harmed).

I also find it very unlikely that two hive scum could dispatch of an unhurt PC in a single round in DH2. It might be possible, but it would require some very lucky rolls from the GM.

It's not especially likely. But the risk is certainly high enough that the grim and gritty and dangerous feeling is there. But then I don't want a game where there's a fifty-chance that two low-ranking gangers will insta-kill a PC. I want a game where it's possible (for realism) and where the PC feels it is dangerous to be set upon by two thugs with revolvers and tries to avoid such violent confrontations without preparation / friends.

I don't know what game you use as benchmark where DH2 is very deadly in comparison and the characters are supposed to be humans with no supernatural powers?

As I just stated in my previous post, I don't. I rejected your entire principle that DH2 needs to be very deadly compared to other very deadly games. What it needs to be, is deadly enough that the game feels dangerous and players act realistically as you would in such situations. And a game where a couple of gangers jumping on you can leave you dead in a couple of rounds amply achieves that, imo. That you want something more dangerous still, leaves me with the impression you want a game where just slightest mischance or random bad roll can derail the campaign.

I would also be happy if you would refrain from making fun of my arguments. You may not agree, but they are in no way as silly as you present them.

Sorry.My humour can be a little acerbic sometimes. My apologies for any offence I have caused.

Peace!

Ultimately, this is a preference thing. No game is "right" or "wrong" when it comes to something like this.

DH2 is a lot more realistic than a lot of other games (including DH1) due to the wound effects, but it's not a real-life simulation.

It's a game, and it wants you to play it. Playing games is generally more than just preparation - you get to react to your circumstances. If your circumstance is being dead, there's not much you can do to react. Early death removes gameplay, which (to me) is a bad thing, even if it's more realistic.

That said, I think a lot of you are greatly underestimating the deadliness of the new system:

1. Evasion is not very dependable anymore. A lot more hits are going to get in due to the opposed DoS nature of evasion tests.
2. Those critical effects are nothing to sneeze at, and they come in a lot earlier than they used to. You're likely to see some very severe effects by the second round (or first, if you're hit by a high-damage weapon). Being one-shotted in real life doesn't always mean you're "dead dead". It means you're unconscious and bleeding to death rapidly - that's going to happen in DH2, too.

Can we get the debate back on track please, guys? The beta test phase isnt that long and while I enjoy reading everyone's opinion here, I'd like to stay focussed on the actual issue of tweaking the beta. Or not (finding that it is good as-is.).

Is +5/+10 too much? Is it just about right? Or too low? (Of course changing these values would mean FFG would have to overhaul the critical tables or change weapon damages also... not sure if they want to do bigger revisions at the beta stage...)

Alex

Sorry for my part in any diversion.

I think +5/+10 is good for a couple of reasons. Firstly it is simple and there are plenty of us who don't want to be going "three times four for the regular wounds plus two times seven for the criticals..."

Secondly, it gives me the room I as a GM need to set things how I want. The higher you raise the total, the more random things become which is just mathematically clear. If it's a high value, e.g. +7, the four hits can mean anywhere from +0 to +28. A much bigger range than +0 to +20 and with the extra randomness comes an increase in difficulty in pitching encounters. Lower, and you start having realism troubles as their buffer zone or "hit points" move from a few close moments giving you a chance to re-think what you're doing / dive for cover, toward D&D-style stand and take it.

I'm good with +5/+10.

But the wound tables does not describe glanzing wound. They describe things such as:

10 or lower: The shot hammers into the target’s chest with a vengeance, pulping his fl esh, bruising his ribs, or infl icting another suitably ghastly blemish upon him. The exact narrative severity of this wound is left to the Game Master’s discretion, but it has no mechanical effect beyond the wound itself.
11: The brutal strike smashes into the target’s solar plexus, causing him to double over in pain and leaving him vulnerable for a moment. The target suffers 1 fatigue.

10 or lower: The shot strikes the target’s head with an dolorous thump, deflecting off of his skull but perhaps inflicting a dreadful abrasion, gash, or fracture in the process. The exact narrative severity of this wound is left to the Game Master’s discretion,but it has no mechanical effect beyond the wound itself.
11 With a crunch, the blow slams into the target’s temple, causing him to reel backward as searing spots of light fill his vision. The target suffers 1 fatigue. If the attack scored a number of degrees of success greater than the target’s Tb, he is Stunned for 1 round.

These are all likely wound effects from a sniper rifle shot to the body or head of an unwounded PC (average damage rolled, TB3, no armor).

Also, while the inability to actually kill an important character with the first couple of hits may have certain narrative advantages, it is the opposite of deadly. That's why I find the system very undeadly. When you also take fate points into account it becomes even less deadly for the PCs.

I am also ok with the general +5/+10 approach.

It is not too complicated and realistic enough.

Its rather the general damage system that has to see some tweaks in my oppinion.

Is +5/+10 too much? Is it just about right? Or too low? (Of course changing these values would mean FFG would have to overhaul the critical tables or change weapon damages also... not sure if they want to do bigger revisions at the beta stage...)

Alex

I would prefer that previous wounds had much less of an influence. Even to the point where they did not affect later damage rolls at all. I would like more deadly wound tables, but not escalating damage. It is fine that people die later on due to effects of their wounds (bleeding, burning and so on).

But the wound tables does not describe glanzing wound. They describe things such as:

10 or lower: The shot hammers into the target’s chest with a vengeance, pulping his fl esh, bruising his ribs, or infl icting another suitably ghastly blemish upon him. The exact narrative severity of this wound is left to the Game Master’s discretion, but it has no mechanical effect beyond the wound itself.

11: The brutal strike smashes into the target’s solar plexus, causing him to double over in pain and leaving him vulnerable for a moment. The target suffers 1 fatigue.

10 or lower: The shot strikes the target’s head with an dolorous thump, deflecting off of his skull but perhaps inflicting a dreadful abrasion, gash, or fracture in the process. The exact narrative severity of this wound is left to the Game Master’s discretion,but it has no mechanical effect beyond the wound itself.

11 With a crunch, the blow slams into the target’s temple, causing him to reel backward as searing spots of light fill his vision. The target suffers 1 fatigue. If the attack scored a number of degrees of success greater than the target’s Tb, he is Stunned for 1 round.

These are all likely wound effects from a sniper rifle shot to the body or head of an unwounded PC (average damage rolled, TB3, no armor).

Also, while the inability to actually kill an important character with the first couple of hits may have certain narrative advantages, it is the opposite of deadly. That's why I find the system very undeadly. When you also take fate points into account it becomes even less deadly for the PCs.

As I wrote in reply in your other thread where you put this argument, I'm not wishing to trivialize but if someone fires a plasma gun at a PC and somehow manages to score a 5 on the Wound table, I'll just say: "as the plasma charge spits past your head, a small drop of the plasma spatters against your chest plate. Even through the armour, it blisters your skin and singes your chest hair"

Improvisation is easy for me to do, but customized wound charts for different weapons would be very hard for FFG to do. Being unwilling to make minor flavour adjustments to the Wound results is just making things hard for yourself, imo.

And again, I find it hard to describe a game where a couple of low-level thugs getting the jump on a PC hasa good chance of that PC being dead in a couple of rounds can reasonably be called "very undeadly".