We all got use to it and have been pretty happily playing with it as it's been our vehicle to tap the sick setting that is Warhammer 40k. But that doesn't mean it wasn't ridiculous .

Well, it could be argued that all rpg combat is pretty ridiculous. The ultimate purpose is not to be realistic , it's to be fun for the players. That's why abstract 'hit points' have been the standard among rpg systems since the birth of the format in the 1970s. They may not be even remotely realistic, but they make imaginary combat pretty fun: it's a nice, simple mechanic that anyone (even someone who has never gamed before) can quickly master.

The real question is: "Is the new system more fun to use, or less?" I'd say the jury is still out on that. The concept of purely narrative damage is intriguing, but the downside is that it is currently awkward to use (a whole lotta looking stuff up in tables upon tables...) and time-consuming (much more book-keeping than just tracking hit points), and there are 'glitches' in the system (multiple scratches on your arm are more dangerous than a single Handcannon shot to the head).

Your suggestion, seanpp , about overcoming the 'scratches trumping mega damage' problem is interesting- but doesn't that push the system back toward old-school 'hit points'?

And- something that I've brought up in other threads- how can the new system 'scale up' to take superhuman adversaries into account without a Wounds characteristic? There is only so much 'depth' in Defensive Value, after all...

I guess what I'm saying is that I know the old combat system works; I'm interested in the new one, but not 100% convinced...

And- something that I've brought up in other threads- how can the new system 'scale up' to take superhuman adversaries into account without a Wounds characteristic? There is only so much 'depth' in Defensive Value, after all...

You raise several valid points. This one, at least, I think is fairly easily solved (for home-made NPCs - all the ones in the book are fine as-is): True Grit. It changes wounds to count as +4/+8 each, effectively increasing the "HP" of the target.

Make a stronger version of this. You could scale it to +1/+2 easily. If you really needed to, there's nothing wrong with scaling to +0.5/+1, or further, either. Combined with a high Toughness to prevent single-shot kills from the better weapons, you can really drag out an encounter for a long time this way.

I agree that the real question is whether this is more fun or not. Right now I'm in favor of the change, but I fear I'm going to tire of it in the end without a better way to look up the effects (concise charts, a card system of some kind, a track on the character sheet? I don't know - but something).

I kinda wish FFG would abstract the damage type away. I get that it would make the charts even less "realistic", but God would it help to have 3 charts rather than 9.

You raise several valid points. This one, at least, I think is fairly easily solved (for home-made NPCs - all the ones in the book are fine as-is): True Grit. It changes wounds to count as +4/+8 each, effectively increasing the "HP" of the target.

Make a stronger version of this. You could scale it to +1/+2 easily. If you really needed to, there's nothing wrong with scaling to +0.5/+1, or further, either. Combined with a high Toughness to prevent single-shot kills from the better weapons, you can really drag out an encounter for a long time this way.

I agree that the real question is whether this is more fun or not. Right now I'm in favor of the change, but I fear I'm going to tire of it in the end without a better way to look up the effects (concise charts, a card system of some kind, a track on the character sheet? I don't know - but something).

I kinda wish FFG would abstract the damage type away. I get that it would make the charts even less "realistic", but God would it help to have 3 charts rather than 9.

Learn from Rolemaster: Put the tables at the end of the book, it makes them much easier to find. Anyway, thanks for the True Grit pointer. I am working through the Talents chapter and haven't reached that one yet. So uneven wound effect modifiers are not per se off the table...

And you need that many different critical hits to avoid repetition.

Alex

We all got use to it and have been pretty happily playing with it as it's been our vehicle to tap the sick setting that is Warhammer 40k. But that doesn't mean it wasn't ridiculous .

Well, it could be argued that all rpg combat is pretty ridiculous. The ultimate purpose is not to be realistic , it's to be fun for the players. That's why abstract 'hit points' have been the standard among rpg systems since the birth of the format in the 1970s. They may not be even remotely realistic, but they make imaginary combat pretty fun: it's a nice, simple mechanic that anyone (even someone who has never gamed before) can quickly master.

The real question is: "Is the new system more fun to use, or less?" I'd say the jury is still out on that. The concept of purely narrative damage is intriguing, but the downside is that it is currently awkward to use (a whole lotta looking stuff up in tables upon tables...) and time-consuming (much more book-keeping than just tracking hit points), and there are 'glitches' in the system (multiple scratches on your arm are more dangerous than a single Handcannon shot to the head).

Your suggestion, seanpp , about overcoming the 'scratches trumping mega damage' problem is interesting- but doesn't that push the system back toward old-school 'hit points'?

And- something that I've brought up in other threads- how can the new system 'scale up' to take superhuman adversaries into account without a Wounds characteristic? There is only so much 'depth' in Defensive Value, after all...

I guess what I'm saying is that I know the old combat system works; I'm interested in the new one, but not 100% convinced...

I didn't actually state "ridiculously unrealistic" - just "ridiculous". I'm not expecting, wanting or striving for a historical reenactment type system. That being said, I do understand your point Adeptus-B.

One always makes a choice of some kind between details/granularity and complexity/game-speed. Of course, you're right that fighting at top-speed despite being heavily wounded is nice and simple - and I've had a lot of fun with it! By saying it was "ridiculous", I'm saying that this choice has a significant downside . RPGs strive for a certain degree of suspension of disbelief. To me, wielding a sword without effect with an arm that just took your total amount of Hit Points in damage, complete realism aside, can have a significant effect on a player's suspension of disbelief. Obviously YMMV.

I'd much prefer a system where that arm is disabled - at least for the purposes of a sword fight - and the player then has to react to that developing combat situation. To me that sounds fun , including if I'm that player - and I fully acknowledge your all-important metric of "fun", by the way.

I have to say, I'm not sure I quite see the complication of "tables upon tables" or MagnusPihl"s comment regarding "3 charts rather than 9". Nine charts sounds like a lot but you're only using one at a time . I mean, if you were going from chart 2, which called for you to go to chart 9, which then called for you to go to chart 5 - I'd certainly understand that concern. But, in purely practical terms, going to one chart out of 9 doesn't sound materially more complicated to me than going to one chart out of 3. One man's opinion.

However, agreed that recording the various effects of multiple suffered wounds rather than just counting Hit Points involves more record keeping. Though, it needs to be noted, that 1e had this same situation with its Critical Effects tables - but they, indeed, came into play less. Which, frankly, is the whole point of replacing it with 2e's Wound Effects tables.

Yes, indeed Adeptus-B, my suggestion goes back to what works with Hit Points - simple addition & a perfect representation of the damage actually suffered (1 point of damage leading to a +1 subsequent modifier). However, it replaces the significant downside of Hit Points where someone had 5 slugs in them but felt fine - with 2e's Wound Effects tables, which try to convey how tough it arguably would be to fight while heavily wounded. (Which again, for my group, adds to the fun.)

I don't hate Hit Points, I just always wished they worked better and 2e is making a solid attempt in-progress. With any new system, as you say, the jury is still out.

Cheers