If I am the only one having a problem with the weapons lethality (and low level of protection provided by a power armor - though we haven't really discussed that), as seems to be the case from the few other participants in this thread, there is no reason to change the rules as they are now.

I don't think you're the only one (though, personally, I don't agree with you) - I think the forums are actually pretty evenly split.

I just don't think it's a right/wrong kind of thing. It's a "what kind of game do they want to make" thing. It's perfectly fair for you to raise the point, but it's also reasonable to expect that FFG is marketing the game to a crowd that wants a more lenient system than you do - remember that a lot of the "less hardcore" potential buyers don't come around here, either.

Personally, I try to think of this as a beta - not an alpha. The game has already been designed, and FFG isn't looking for us to modify their vision of the game (such as - arguably! - the level of lethality). What they are looking for us to test is stuff like weapon balance and conflicting rules. It's a thin line, though, and I'm not the one to say where it's drawn.

I actually thought it we be a complete waste of time to voice my concerns in the beta phase, but was quite impressed by the willingness to change things shown in the update, and decided to give it a shot anyways.

I think you may have a point regarding many people may want a more lenient system. On the other hand, I would think that a big potential source of new players are the wargamers - and wargamers are used to anti-tank weapons being very dangerous. One of the most common complains I have heard from wargamers who tried DH1 (in addition to the extremely high whiff-factor), is that weapons capeable of melting a land raider or dreadnought should be much more dangerous than they are in the DH1 system. I don't think that the DH2 system is going to be better received in this regard.

There's no reason the game can't introduce the odd "OPTIONAL RULE" side bar. That's quite common in some games, but I don't think I've seen it here yet. But anyway, if anyone can come up with a simple drop-in approach which achieves what is desired, then it could be added in this way and thus everyone is happy.

E.g.:

OPTIONAL RULE: "Bullet to the Head"
 
Dark Heresy is a pretty violent game. But that's not to say it couldn't be 
more violent! For those GMs that want to run a more brutal system, the 
following two changes can be made. Warning: this can result in players dropping 
from fine to dead with little opportunity to do anything about it.
 

1. From now on, wound penalties are not only applied from the previous attack, 
but from the previous hit. That means if a character is hit multiple times in an 
attack each subsequent damage roll has a greater chance of scoring a high Wound 
result than the previous one. This enables people with automatic weapons to mow 
down an opponent more quickly

I'm not sure that is particularly good. I'm just trying to illustrate that we can please everyone by adding in something like the above. The criteria is that it needs to be a simple and self-contained rule change though, otherwise it would get messy and confuse power-balance levels, etc. Don't know what others would suggest - I'm not the one to come up with something like this as I like the current system too much. But I'm trying to provide a helpful input. Someone else here with a better grasp of the rules should suggest something.

Note, the opening warning isn't me trying to get in a dig supporting my own views, I promise. I think if you're going to do something that alters the risk to players in a significant way, newbie GMs like me need explanation of what effect introducing an optional rule will have.

I don't mind official optional rules, and I completely agrees that such rules needs clarification, just like the one you wrote. It may be a good way to please more players and give some hints on how to make combat more or less deadly.

I think a pretty good house rule would just be a combination of what's been posted. Create the weapon quality "Anti-vehicle: weapons with this quality add 10 to any results scored on the wound table" and then assign it to the weapons of your choice.

I think that may be a bit too vague, and doesn't really increase the lethality of something like bolters and sniper rifles.

I would prefer a different damage system (with more dangerous weapons, but no escalating/cumulative damage), but could live with something simple, such as:

Increased lethality: When using this optional rule add 10 to any damage result when consulting a wound effect table.

I do think, however, that the wound effect tables needs to better reflect that some of the lower damage hits are not center-mass hits, but near misses instead. No bullets hitting an unarmored man straight in the solarplexus for 1 fatigue point, and so on.

That seems to me a problem with the impact and rending tables being written for melee weapons as opposed to ranged ones. I think it's implied that the descriptions are up to GM interpretation.

I think that may be a bit too vague, and doesn't really increase the lethality of something like bolters and sniper rifles.

I would prefer a different damage system (with more dangerous weapons, but no escalating/cumulative damage), but could live with something simple, such as:

Increased lethality: When using this optional rule add 10 to any damage result when consulting a wound effect table.

I do think, however, that the wound effect tables needs to better reflect that some of the lower damage hits are not center-mass hits, but near misses instead. No bullets hitting an unarmored man straight in the solarplexus for 1 fatigue point, and so on.

I think that works well for what I understand Mathias to want. Essentially just strip off the first ten levels of the Wound tables and you're with the same system (so it's a simple change that doesn't introduce any odd balance inconsistencies unequally), but with the possibility of insta-death and no 'hitting without hurting' (for want of a better term).

It's the sort of simple but clean change that could easily be included as an optional rule side bar.

I'm fine with this abstract use of "Fate Points" for characters and important enemies, just keep "better than average" grunts out of the fate system (elites).

But my issue is that once you accumulate wounds, suddenly you no longer can take trivial wounds, and the book tries to explain it as a medical issue (somehow a wound in the leg makes you more susceptible to a mortal body hit) - call it fate be done with it instead of trying to explain it in unbelievable pseudo-medical terms. I also don't like the fact that you HAVE to have suffered previous wounds to be eligible for a potentially fatal hit.

So here's an idea to open up the entire wound scale: Important characters have a fate / wound pool, that can be used to reduce damage. Incoming damage, after defence, is multiplied by D5 / D3 / something (requires testing). Simple, and works. Cronies don't have fate / wounds and suffer the full effect every time.

Sounds simple and good to me.

I'm not so sure I like the idea of PCs getting 1-shotted or getting killed so fast that they can't do anything about it. It makes sense if they do something monumentally stupid or there is a freak accident but with this deadlier system, if they get ambushed, they could be killed outright or incapacitated in one round. They of course have fate points but if weapons become deadlier, there would need to be better armor as well.

A player can only be so careful and therefore the character is pretty much doomed to die a horrible death regardless of their actions at some point especially at higher ranks.

The other problem that I see with enhanced lethality is that the group of PCs would be so badly injured in battles that they wouldn't be able to continue on without some down time which in most cases rules out time sensitive missions such as a race to find the bomb or something like that.

The key is to have a good balance of deadliness vs survivability. They should feel challenged just enough to feel like they barely squeaked that mission out without always having to get a new cybernetic body part to replace the latest blown off limb. From my experience GMing, this balance has always lied in the GM's hands and not in the game mechanics.

I was working on a hitpoint free damage system before 2nd edition was anounced but I haven't playtested it yet.

I was working on a hitpoint free damage system before 2nd edition was anounced but I haven't playtested it yet.

If damage is more than armor + TB add 1 fatigue (if fatigue is grater than 1/2 TB role on chart.)

If damage is more than armor + 2 times TB role on chart.

If damage is more than armor + 3 times TB limb hit is out of use till treated.

If damage is more than armor + 4 times TB limb hit is gone.

Limb in this context includes head and body. Apply all lesser results also but only role on chart once. Treat arms, legs and head as having 1/2 TB as I'm sick of my players scoring headshots and doing no damage. Spending a fate point can drop damage down one level.

It hasn't been updated yet so you might need to hammer it into shape for the new edition but you're all welcome to use it.

That's very interesting. Can I ask for some parentheses, though? I cannot tell if you mean armour + (2 x TB) or you mean 2 x (armour + TB) .

Read as written, your statement would be the former (multiplication precedes addition), but I want to be sure.

I could see not being certain about whether it's [Armor+2]*Tb vs Armor + 2[Tb] but even the words wouldn't be placed right for 2[Armor+TB]

Surely tis the former.

I was working on a hitpoint free damage system before 2nd edition was anounced but I haven't playtested it yet.

If damage is more than armor + TB add 1 fatigue (if fatigue is grater than 1/2 TB role on chart.)

If damage is more than armor + 2 times TB role on chart.

If damage is more than armor + 3 times TB limb hit is out of use till treated.

If damage is more than armor + 4 times TB limb hit is gone.

Limb in this context includes head and body. Apply all lesser results also but only role on chart once. Treat arms, legs and head as having 1/2 TB as I'm sick of my players scoring headshots and doing no damage. Spending a fate point can drop damage down one level.

It hasn't been updated yet so you might need to hammer it into shape for the new edition but you're all welcome to use it.

That's very interesting. Can I ask for some parentheses, though? I cannot tell if you mean armour + (2 x TB) or you mean 2 x (armour + TB) .

Read as written, your statement would be the former (multiplication precedes addition), but I want to be sure.

Armour + (2xTB) sorry.

There's no reason the game can't introduce the odd "OPTIONAL RULE" side bar. That's quite common in some games, but I don't think I've seen it here yet. But anyway, if anyone can come up with a simple drop-in approach which achieves what is desired, then it could be added in this way and thus everyone is happy.

E.g.:

OPTIONAL RULE: "Bullet to the Head"
 
Dark Heresy is a pretty violent game. But that's not to say it couldn't be 
more violent! For those GMs that want to run a more brutal system, the 
following two changes can be made. Warning: this can result in players dropping 
from fine to dead with little opportunity to do anything about it.
 

1. From now on, wound penalties are not only applied from the previous attack, 
but from the previous hit. That means if a character is hit multiple times in an 
attack each subsequent damage roll has a greater chance of scoring a high Wound 
result than the previous one. This enables people with automatic weapons to mow 
down an opponent more quickly

I'm not sure that is particularly good. I'm just trying to illustrate that we can please everyone by adding in something like the above. The criteria is that it needs to be a simple and self-contained rule change though, otherwise it would get messy and confuse power-balance levels, etc. Don't know what others would suggest - I'm not the one to come up with something like this as I like the current system too much. But I'm trying to provide a helpful input. Someone else here with a better grasp of the rules should suggest something.

Note, the opening warning isn't me trying to get in a dig supporting my own views, I promise. I think if you're going to do something that alters the risk to players in a significant way, newbie GMs like me need explanation of what effect introducing an optional rule will have.

I am also a big supporter of this.

Optional rules - especially for combat are a great opportunity to give options to different kinds of player groups.

I would like to see that much more.