The debate in the other thread I have started tends to be a bit abstract. Maybe it's a good idea to get a feel for what GMs here desire from their combat system by asking for examples. So I made up a short list of scenarios, so we can compare our expectations from a damage system. Maybe that would help.

Please have a look at the brief scenarios following here and tell me what YOU think the outcome should be under a final DH 2.0 system. Forget existing mechanisms, forget the crit tables or whatever, just assume average rolls for damage, discount use of Fate Points (they can be used after determining results). Targets are all at full health. (If you want to take the time and effort, you can also write a second outcome for a target who has already taken a medium wound in the chest and a light wound in the leg, if outcome is different.)

Scenario#1:
PC is being shot at, single autogun hit comes through, hits head (TB 3, no armour).

Scenario #2:
PC shoots at NPC in hive leathers. Autogun hits right arm, chest, left arm (Master, TB 4, leather armour).

Scenario #3:
PC sets up ambush on cult leader NPC after an elaborate plot of getting into ambush position on him. He shoots
with a Long-las at the enemy boss and hits in the head (Master, TB 3, no armour).

Scenario#4:
PC shoots at fleeing heretic with boltgun (Elite, TB 3, no armour), a single bolt hits - in the back.

Scenario#5:
Sage PC is hit by a single bolt from an enemy boltgun in the chest (TB2, robes).

Scenario#6:
Former Imperial Guard PC is hit once by plasma gun in the chest (TB4, flak vest)

Please be equally brief in reply. Just share what kind of injuries you expect and/or the likelihood of being killed then and there. That way one has a set of expectations to model against.

Alex

This is a good idea, ak_73.

I'm assuming the targets are at full health (haven't been wounded yet).

#1:

The PC should take a minor wound but not be that adversely affected. Maybe a small status condition.

#2:

The Master NPC should be afflicted with some status conditions, but not enough to remove him as a threat.

#3:

The Master NPC should be hurt, preferably with a pretty bad status condition (depending on damage roll). He should not be taken out of the fight.

#4:

There should be a very decent chance of killing him outright, or otherwise incapacitating him, but it should not be guaranteed.

#5:

The PC should be hurt, preferably with a noticeable status condition, but should still be able to participate in the fight.

#6:

Pretty much the same as #5. The weapon is stronger, but so is the defence.

Good point, edited the OP.

Alex

1) Wounded (obv) but otherwise fine to continue the fight. Maybe some thematic narrative damage

2) Heavily wounded, maybe some damage to his BS and WS as his arms are buggered

3) Dead. Suprise + Head Shot + Assassination = High chance of instagib

4) Dead. This is a boltgun. Maybe some penalty from running away (side note i've always felt boltguns to be Underpowered in DH - its a grenade you shoot into people!)

5) Heavily wounded. Wearing "player/plot" armour. Insta-deaths are no fun. Maybe some stunning effect

Scenario#1:
Considering the total lack of armour, I'd say it should deal some significant status effect, and maybe even stun, but it shouldn't kill.

Scenario #2:
Some inconvenient status effects, but still in the fight for a round or two.

Scenario #3:
Should be handled narratively, I don't think rules should account for assassination situations, they're intended to simulate combat .

Scenario#4:
Debilitating status effect due to the lack of armour, probably not totally dead though.

Scenario#5:
Similar to above, but slightly less severe, because this is a PC, and they should be hardier than most NPCs.

Scenario#6:
A lot of damage, and some minor status effects, but the combination of toughness, armour and the fact he's a PC should mean he isn't massively hindered by one hit from a plasma gun.

This is a good idea, ak_73.

I'm assuming the targets are at full health (haven't been wounded yet).

#1:

The PC should take a minor wound but not be that adversely affected. Maybe a small status condition.

#2:

The Master NPC should be afflicted with some status conditions, but not enough to remove him as a threat.

#3:

The Master NPC should be hurt, preferably with a pretty bad status condition (depending on damage roll). He should not be taken out of the fight.

#4:

There should be a very decent chance of killing him outright, or otherwise incapacitating him, but it should not be guaranteed.

#5:

The PC should be hurt, preferably with a noticeable status condition, but should still be able to participate in the fight.

#6:

Pretty much the same as #5. The weapon is stronger, but so is the defence.

I agree with Magus in all scenarios, and in the sentiment that this is a good idea for a thread.

Having #3 worked out narratively, as Tom Cruise says is also a good idea, but that rule should be printed. I see that they removed the +30 for unaware foe, so this seems that this is the way they are going with the game.

I know you want brief answers matching your actual questions, but for me this is a little bit of a "When did you stop beating your wife" question, in that the question contains a trap. I'm sure not deliberate, but it creates a scenario that is easily avoidable in game. Essentially - the use of "Master" status which you attach to some of your examples.

Master is a special status you can grant to significant plot characters / end bosses / call them what you will. It is designed so that a GM can give them a special status.

When you give your question of "what should be the result when such and such happens to a master villain?", then you can read that as "what should be the result when such and such happens to a villain that a GM has added the special guard against such and such status to?"

Basically, this whole premise is misleading because it appears to be trying to gauge what the consensus is on weapons effects, but in fact, it presupposes GM interference already. Don't want an End-Boss-No-Random-Lucky-Hit-Is-Going-To-Make-This-Anticlimactic type villain in your game, don't create Master villains.

But maybe I just read it that way because I've just come out of the long debate in that other thread.

Broadly speaking, I agree with Magnus.

I know you want brief answers matching your actual questions, but for me this is a little bit of a "When did you stop beating your wife" question, in that the question contains a trap. I'm sure not deliberate, but it creates a scenario that is easily avoidable in game. Essentially - the use of "Master" status which you attach to some of your examples.

No, it's a concrete question, one which is required for modeling weapon damage against expectations under the assumptions that NPCs are categorized as they are.

Alex

Agree to Magnus also.

But at 3 I would give a chance of death. I am no fan of solving this narrative though - a surprise situation is for me the first part of a combat.

Maybe improved rules for surprise (sneak attack rules ?) could help.

Furthermore, other than Tom cruise, I would not differ between a (Elite or Master) NPC and a PC between damage outcome and results. That what Fate points are for (which are not part of the comment here).

I know you want brief answers matching your actual questions, but for me this is a little bit of a "When did you stop beating your wife" question, in that the question contains a trap. I'm sure not deliberate, but it creates a scenario that is easily avoidable in game. Essentially - the use of "Master" status which you attach to some of your examples.

No, it's a concrete question, one which is required for modeling weapon damage against expectations under the assumptions that NPCs are categorized as they are.

Alex

I'm pointing out that "Master" is a special attribute designed to for a GM to optionally add when they want to put some plot-armour on an NPC. If the question is how should plot armour be implemented mechanically, then that is fine. But the overall tenor of the question as I read it, felt to be about combat results should be. Actively adding plot-armour to an NPC to alter the combat results, skews that question. I felt there was an assumption that "Master" status should be added, but there's no requirement to do so. It's something you add when you want to protect an NPC from what a normal combat result would be.

Essentially, your question is "what should the combat results be, in a situation where the GM has explicitly meddled with what they would be". That's how I read it. In any case, I've answered the question in that my take on it is pretty much in accord with Magnus's.

Scenario#1:
PC is being shot at, single autogun hit comes through, hits head (TB 3, no armour).

20% chance of a light wound.

30% chance of a serious wound.

40% chance of a disabling wound.

10% chance of death (where a fate point will likely save him).

Scenario #2:
PC shoots at NPC (TB3) in hive leathers. Autogun hits right arm, chest, left arm (Master, TB 4, leather armour).
10% chance of a light wound.

35% chance of a serious wound.

35% chance of a disabling wound.

20% chance of death.

Scenario #3:
PC sets up ambush on cult leader NPC after an elaborate plot of getting into ambush position on him. He shoots
with a Long-las at the enemy boss and hits in the head (Master, TB 3, no armour).

10% chance of a light wound.

20% chance of a serious wound.

30% chance of a disabling wound.

40% chance of death.

Scenario#4:
PC shoots at fleeing heretic with boltgun (Elite, TB 3, no armour), a single bolt hits - in the back.
10% chance of a light wound.

30% chance of a serious wound.

30% chance of a disabling wound.

30% chance of death.

Scenario#5:
Sage PC is hit by a single bolt from an enemy boltgun in the chest (TB2, robes).
10% chance of a light wound.

30% chance of a serious wound.

30% chance of a disabling wound.

30% chance of death (where a fate point will likely save him).

Scenario#6:
Former Imperial Guard PC is hit once by plasma gun in the chest (TB4, flak vest)

10% chance of a light wound.

20% chance of a serious wound.

30% chance of a disabling wound.

40% chance of death (where a fate point will likely save him).

I'm pointing out that "Master" is a special attribute designed to for a GM to optionally add when they want to put some plot-armour on an NPC. If the question is how should plot armour be implemented mechanically, then that is fine. But the overall tenor of the question as I read it, felt to be about combat results should be. Actively adding plot-armour to an NPC to alter the combat results, skews that question. I felt there was an assumption that "Master" status should be added, but there's no requirement to do so. It's something you add when you want to protect an NPC from what a normal combat result would be.

Essentially, your question is "what should the combat results be, in a situation where the GM has explicitly meddled with what they would be". That's how I read it. In any case, I've answered the question in that my take on it is pretty much in accord with Magnus's.

No, the NPC levels are merely an unquestioned assumption. Since I am assuming here that this part of the game stays in, I want to take it into account as it obviously will have an impact on the final mechanics in some form (it currently does in the form of insta-kill on RF). It's an additional dimension, which is why I have been looking at the range of values {PC, Elite NPC, master NPC}.

Alex

I'm pointing out that "Master" is a special attribute designed to for a GM to optionally add when they want to put some plot-armour on an NPC. If the question is how should plot armour be implemented mechanically, then that is fine. But the overall tenor of the question as I read it, felt to be about combat results should be. Actively adding plot-armour to an NPC to alter the combat results, skews that question. I felt there was an assumption that "Master" status should be added, but there's no requirement to do so. It's something you add when you want to protect an NPC from what a normal combat result would be.

Essentially, your question is "what should the combat results be, in a situation where the GM has explicitly meddled with what they would be". That's how I read it. In any case, I've answered the question in that my take on it is pretty much in accord with Magnus's.

No, the NPC levels are merely an unquestioned assumption. Since I am assuming here that this part of the game stays in, I want to take it into account as it obviously will have an impact on the final mechanics in some form (it currently does in the form of insta-kill on RF). It's an additional dimension, which is why I have been looking at the range of values {PC, Elite NPC, master NPC}.

Alex

Sure. All I'm doing is pointing out that Master is specifically designed to put plot consideration ahead of results. I can take a lesser daemon and make her an Elite, or I can decide she is the Big Bad of the adventure and I want to have her immune to normal immediate results of a lucky shot. It's a decision at the GM level and plot-based. That's the comment I made - I'm highlighting that it is a GM choice to interfere by giving an NPC special status and therefore qualitatively different to the rest of the combat mechanics. Do you see what I mean? Asking what effect basing a melee weapons RoF on Agility is a system wide and realism question. Asking what effect a GM adding plot armour to a favoured NPC is different.

All questions have a purpose. There's a big and heavy discussion going on about realism and lethality in the combat system on these forums (of which you are one of the foremost arguers). Your question in this thread is to gauge what effects people want from the combat system and obviously feeds into those discussions about realism and lethality. The reason that I am pointing out that "Master" status is different, is because it doesn't feed into the realism and lethality debates in the same way as other aspects of he combat system do, because it is explicitly the GM choosing to actively apply a double-standard / plot-armour to their favoured NPCs and villains.

Therefore when you take people's answers to their questions and apply them to the debates on realism and lethality, you need to keep in mind that you're including in your combats something that explicitly means "I want to protect my special NPC".

It's the NPC equivalent of Fate Points. When we discuss the combat system in DH2 do we always want to include Fate Points in the discussion? Yes, in some instances. But we also keep in mind that they're an unusual and circumstantial oddity. I get the impression from your questions that you are expecting Master to be added. I'm just pointing out that GM's who dislike "plot armour" wont be adding it and those that do will be. It's a choice. But with your questions, the answers from both kinds of GMs will get rolled up together. You'll get answers from people who dislike plot armour saying "Master" should be handled one way, and answers from others saying the other way. But as it's optional, there's no reason to take both into account. It's more correct to have a question that is "do you want Master status" and the follow it up with "if you use Master status, how would you like Master status to work". That way, the answers don't get muddled up with those who wouldn't use it anyway. Make sense?

It's the NPC equivalent of Fate Points.

Sorry to pick out a small fragment of your post (and sorry to clog up the thread), but I think that's giving Master status too much credit.

Master Status is the equivalent of higher HP / more Wounds (DH1 Wounds, that is - let's call it HP).

It's not as linear or obvious as HP, but it's the same effect: Elites generally survive a little longer than Novices. Masters generally survive a little longer than Elites.

DH1 had important characters with more HP than the grunts. Most RPGs do. I've never heard a complaint about that (that's not to say there haven't been complaints). Why is it such a big deal now? Is it just because it isn't a number?

It's the NPC equivalent of Fate Points.

Sorry to pick out a small fragment of your post (and sorry to clog up the thread), but I think that's giving Master status too much credit.

Master Status is the equivalent of higher HP / more Wounds (DH1 Wounds, that is - let's call it HP).

I agree with that. I was trying to express that it is the same family of thing as Fate Points - a kind of plot-based meta-mechanic rather than anything meant to represent an actual in-setting real thing like Agility or blast radius. I wasn't meaning that it was equivalent in terms of degree.

And also, this is clogging up the thread as you say. I had only really wanted to make one point as a commentary: some people like plot-armour and meta-game mechanics. Some people think of it as cheating or otherwise dislike it. If you ask a hundred people how a meta-game mechanic should be handled, the former group will give you one set of answers and the latter group will give you another. It's valid to smoosh them together if the mechanic is enforced. But when it's something optional that only one group will use, then you're less interested in the take of the group that wont be using it anyway.

Why is it such a big deal now? Is it just because it isn't a number?

I think just because there is a minor skirmish going on at the moment over realism vs. lethality vs. game needs / play style. Plot armour is about as clear an example of setting game above realism / "fairness" as you can get. So it's worth clearly highlighting examples of it where found and making clear that they are a GM intervention, rather than anything which will forcefully impact on this debate. If the GM doesn't intervene, it's irrelevant. Don't want plot-armour? Just don't use the plot armour ("Master" status) special bonus. Its relationship to the realism vs. lethality vs. game style / needs, is more complicated than something like AP or Wound results.

The master doesnt get a bonus.

Elites and especially Novices get a negative where they might die earlier.

Or did I get something wrong ?

One thing to also bring up is skill of the shooter. Do they have Crippling Shot? Do they have Eye of Vengeance? These talents make a big difference in the effect of the attack, and can be picked up relatively early by dedicated shooters.

Scenario 1: (why doesn't the PC have armour? All armour in DH2 provides at least some AP to the head) From an unskilled shooter, this should result in an "everybody gets one" style effect. In other words, you got lucky this first time. I'm not going to make a big deal over the shot landing on the head. I'd tell the player they have a nice gash over the ear, but otherwise no real issue.

If a skilled shooter, I'd probably give a minor condition, either something that messes with their immediate (next turns) economy of actions, or, give a longer term condition that comes up later (like Fatigue). Perception decay may also come up.

Scenario 2: (example is inconsistent, TB3 or TB4?) Given that this is a master grade NPC, it would be something similar to Scenario 1's skilled shooter effect. Either a result that messes with their next turn, or a longer term survivability issue, but not both. I would probably make it something such that the NPC can at least get to cover next turn.

If the player is a skilled shooter, I might consider more serious condition (crippled limb, stunned, toughness decay). Not dead, but seriously hindered.

Scenario 3: The skill of the shooter is a big deal here. Like, really big. Crippling Shot + Eye of Vengeance is 8 more damage than base. I know you want to avoid using hard rules, but its worth pointing out that this means average damage is 22.5. High end is 27. Note that, having the Burning condition, and being Stunned means you can't put out the fire. Its a guaranteed 3 wounds pretty much. While the effect rank is significantly smaller with those, it adds up.

It would be the initial hit, then they stand there clutching their face as it practically melts off, taking an energy 10 hit the next turn, and an energy 16 hit the following turn. After that they have to start testing agility to put out the fire. And that's easier said than done. Failing that its energy 22 that turn (or more, since energy 16 can inflict burning), and 28 the following turn after that. That's just plain dead by then. So its actually a rather impressive and comical death. All provided by the current RAW too. I like that its not a 1 hit kill, but it is at least rewarding to the players. It just means the encounter shifts over to trying to gun down anyone trying to aid the villain.

Like the mechanical condition, I would probably not make it an instant kill, but rather something where if the target does not receive immediate medical attention they will likely die.

Scenario 4: To me, they cease being an Elite NPC when they flee at full health. The scenario makes little sense to me. If they're not Elite, then they likely will die due to extreme damage.

Scenario 5: Very key one the damage roll. Low damage, it'd be just another wound, high damage would be a bad condition. Mid damage would probably be a condition that effects next turns economy of actions (dazed).

If a skilled shooter, slightly worse. Mechanically speaking, this is on average 16 damage (assuming 7 is average with tearing) if they have crippling shot. 16 rending to the body is Dazed 2 rounds, and a -20 Toughness test for Blood Loss(DoF). That's bad. The reduced amount of APs makes it far more difficult for them to heal themselves. Also an increased chance of a fatigued Agility stat means that the 2AP action is a 3AP action, which a Dazed character would be unable to perform. With TB 2 this could imply a low TB+WB threshold, so unconsciousness seems likely too.

Scenario 6: Very similar to above. Although slightly more serious.

If a skilled shooter, quite bad. Multiple rounds of reduced action economy, heavy fatigue is how I would handle it. Maybe Lost Internal Organ. Mechanically, its going to be 21.5 energy damage to the torso. Even more if overcharging. 22-25 range of damage is a high value Burning condition and a strong chance to go Unconscious. That's a dangerous combination.

While I get the point of this thread, choosing to ignore how serious the synergy of conditions can be in this system is kind of foolish. People should realize that a good few of these conditions (or at least combinations of them) will kill a character if they're not resolved quickly.

While I get the point of this thread, choosing to ignore how serious the synergy of conditions can be in this system is kind of foolish. People should realize that a good few of these conditions (or at least combinations of them) will kill a character if they're not resolved quickly.

Fair enough.

However, I wanted specifically to abstract from special abilities. The bullet doesnt care about the skill of the shooter, nor does the actual impact location. Yes, within body locations there are areas of different criticality but I just wanted to assume a generic, sort of average, hit in all scenarios.

Alex

PS Scenario #2 edited.

The master doesnt get a bonus.

Elites and especially Novices get a negative where they might die earlier.

Or did I get something wrong ?

Not sure. A little bit of you standing at the top of the hill looking down, me standing at the bottom looking up, and arguing over whether you're high up or I am low down, perhaps. Master, Elite and Novice are all relevant to each other. But yeah, you more might right technically. In practical terms it makes no difference. I'm amazed how much my short comment got turned into a big debate. What's relevant, is it's a GM choice.

I am rather not sure though if I like it that Elite NPCs always die at a critical hit.

Might make RF too powerful in regard to tearing and automatic fire with multiple hits.

With tearing (or the new vengeful) I might be ok, as these mirrors certain characteristics of the used weapons.

But I am not so sure, that I would like every second lucky hit from an autopistol to kill an elite enemy, because RF is triggered.

I am rather not sure though if I like it that Elite NPCs always die at a critical hit.

Might make RF too powerful in regard to tearing and automatic fire with multiple hits.

With tearing (or the new vengeful) I might be ok, as these mirrors certain characteristics of the used weapons.

But I am not so sure, that I would like every second lucky hit from an autopistol to kill an elite enemy, because RF is triggered.

To me, it's more problematic that auto-kill is tied to a fixed (more or less) die roll result. It doesnt depend so much on weapon used or skill or whatever. I dont get why they dont make it: every hit with 10+ (or whatever) excess damage is an auto-kill on Novice NPCs. And 15+ (or whatever) for Elites.

Alex

The debate in the other thread I have started tends to be a bit abstract. Maybe it's a good idea to get a feel for what GMs here desire from their combat system by asking for examples. So I made up a short list of scenarios, so we can compare our expectations from a damage system. Maybe that would help.

Scenario#1:

PC is being shot at, single autogun hit comes through, hits head (TB 3, no armour).

Scenario #2:

PC shoots at NPC in hive leathers. Autogun hits right arm, chest, left arm (Master, TB 4, leather armour).

Scenario #3:

PC sets up ambush on cult leader NPC after an elaborate plot of getting into ambush position on him. He shoots

with a Long-las at the enemy boss and hits in the head (Master, TB 3, no armour).

Scenario#4:

PC shoots at fleeing heretic with boltgun (Elite, TB 3, no armour), a single bolt hits - in the back.

Scenario#5:

Sage PC is hit by a single bolt from an enemy boltgun in the chest (TB2, robes).

Scenario#6:

Former Imperial Guard PC is hit once by plasma gun in the chest (TB4, flak vest)

Please be equally brief in reply. Just share what kind of injuries you expect and/or the likelihood of being killed then and there. That way one has a set of expectations to model against.

Alex

This, IMHO is an excellent way to get to the point you are looking for!

1. Probably a light injury unless damage roll is ludicrously high! If it is than Moderate status condition + minor chance of death (Blood loss for example).

2. NPC is seriously injured! Very high damage rolls could kill.

3. NPC is almost assuredly out of action with moderate damage roll. High Damage and NPC better have fate point to burn!

4. Not sure on this one. Is NPC wounded? Probably at least serious injury (It is a boltgun after all!)

5. Sage should be crying on the ground like a little girl! (Assuming moderately decent damage roll) (As above, It is a boltgun!)

6. This could run the gammut from mild flash burn to splat! It all depends on the damage roll!

You guys do understand that the severity of the damage, as well as the specifics of the hit, are largely abstracted through the use of randomized damage, right?

Saying that "it hits a target in the back" is a narrative effect that should be concluded after damage is rolled, and is a description derived after the damage, not before. If you roll low on damage, aiming for the back (chest), and subsequently has a low effect on the wound condition chart, I would say something along the lines of "you fire at the target as he flees, however, he dips to the side at the last moment and bullet grazes his upper chest." I think you guys are trying to bend the abstractions of the rules into concrete examples without understanding that the two exist seperately.

You guys do understand that the severity of the damage, as well as the specifics of the hit, are largely abstracted through the use of randomized damage, right?

Saying that "it hits a target in the back" is a narrative effect that should be concluded after damage is rolled, and is a description derived after the damage, not before. If you roll low on damage, aiming for the back (chest), and subsequently has a low effect on the wound condition chart, I would say something along the lines of "you fire at the target as he flees, however, he dips to the side at the last moment and bullet grazes his upper chest." I think you guys are trying to bend the abstractions of the rules into concrete examples without understanding that the two exist seperately.

You didnt read the original post closely enough, even though I underlined parts of it.

Anyway, let me state my take on things:

Scenario#1:

PC is being shot at, single autogun hit comes through, hits head (TB 3, no armour).

A medium damage roll with a gunshot to the head? That's a serious wound (insta-death for novices, a chance of insta-death for elites, masters count as PCs). PCs should try to avoid getting shot in the head.

Scenario #2:

PC shoots at NPC in hive leathers. Autogun hits right arm, chest, left arm (Master, TB 4, leather armour).

NPC is wounded, probably somewhere between medium and seriously. (The chest hit should carry a insta-death chance with an above average damage roll.)

Scenario #3:

PC sets up ambush on cult leader NPC after an elaborate plot of getting into ambush position on him. He shoots

with a Long-las at the enemy boss and hits in the head (Master, TB 3, no armour).

Normally death. The players had to work hard to get into ambushing position. The headshot should be only formality, if it hits. And damage dice aren't completely terrible (well, they are assumed to be average here). Note that I think a Long-las hit with a "hip-shot" during combat should on average deal less damage. A hit on a carefully aimed shot (maybe through a scope) minimizes the potential for grazing shots, etc.

Scenario#4:

PC shoots at fleeing heretic with boltgun (Elite, TB 3, no armour), a single bolt hits - in the back.

A high likelihood of incapicitation (maybe even death). It's "only" an Elite, he's an average human without armour being struck by a boltgun hit. This dude has got a huge problem. If he can carry on fighting, it's with negative modifiers as his performance gets enormously degraded.

Scenario#5:

Sage PC is hit by a single bolt from an enemy boltgun in the chest (TB2, robes).

Serious wound. On an above average roll there might be a chance for insta-death.

Scenario#6:

Former Imperial Guard PC is hit once by plasma gun in the chest (TB4, flak vest)

On an average damage roll? Probably same result as scenario #5. Elites should be dead or out-of-action.

Alas, it's not the road FFG seems to travel as it is intended to gear combat towards certain gaming aspects. Makes sense if you're aiming at supporting game sessions less than 5 hours, which in turn probably makes economic sense. For the hardcore gamers this tends to be rather kinda meh though.

Alex

You guys do understand that the severity of the damage, as well as the specifics of the hit, are largely abstracted through the use of randomized damage, right?

Saying that "it hits a target in the back" is a narrative effect that should be concluded after damage is rolled, and is a description derived after the damage, not before. If you roll low on damage, aiming for the back (chest), and subsequently has a low effect on the wound condition chart, I would say something along the lines of "you fire at the target as he flees, however, he dips to the side at the last moment and bullet grazes his upper chest." I think you guys are trying to bend the abstractions of the rules into concrete examples without understanding that the two exist seperately.

You didnt read the original post closely enough, even though I underlined parts of it.

I don't actually see anything in Kainus's post that is incompatible with your first post. It may be that you haven't got the point they're making. Unless Kainus's wants to correct me, then I believe what they're saying is that your question is omitting part of the rules that determine where someone is hit.

For example, your first question is about a shot hitting someone in the head:

An attack roll + target location of head does not mean they have been hit in the head. It could mean (according to the Wound tables), that the shot "blazes over the targets head by millimetres" or "the strike catches the target full in the face" - both results from the Wound tables for head.

The point is, that when you ask a question about someone getting hit in the head with a weapon, you need to recognize that the DH2 system determines whether this has happened by the Attack roll + Location roll + Wound roll. All three are components of whether someone is "hit in the head". For you to ask what should be the effect of someone getting shot in the head, is equivalent to asking what should be the effect of someone getting a high Wound result on the tables for the head location.

Basically, they're making the point that you seem to be thinking of the system in terms of the damage roll being independent of where a target is actually shot but the damage roll is part of how you determine where the target is hit. There are numerous examples within the wound tables that further refine it to say that the blow grazes a temple or hits the ribs rather than any organs or "scorches millimetres above the target's head".

If you roll a low result on the wound table and it describes a near miss, then the problem isn't that it's unrealistically portraying a shot in the head, the problem is that you're discarding the fact that the rules say it was a near miss.

EDIT: So for clarification, when answering your questions, can we interpret it along the lines of: "what should the results of an autogun to the head, TB3, relatively high Wound result be?" Because that is how the system actually determines precisely where you have been hit.