Hello guys - me again :-)

This time - my biggest issues with the armoury chapter:

1.) The shotgun needs to be more unique and to feel more like a shotgun - at least it needs to be buffed a little and be made different to being a flamer without burning

2.) Bolter pen seems a little too low. Please dont stick this iconic weapons on a pen of 2. At least give them the respect of pen 3 or 4. It should also be considered to give the bolt pistol a RoF of 1.

3.) Plasma weapons seem too strong. The pen is too high and weakens the melta in comparison. A pen of 8 would be high enough in my oppinion.

It would also be a good compensation for the too good weapon, to have a more dangerous and serious downside - this would also fit fluff-wise.

4.) The flamers damage is a little high...maybe considering to lower it by 1 could make sense

5.) Chain weapons seem a little too weak, also the knife. In contrast, Improvised seems to be a little too good

6.) In general, I think melee weapon RoF scale to imbalanced sometimes. It would maybe be better to scale them softer with characteristic bonus/2 (rounded up) instead of the whole bonus.

Like for swords: WsB/2 - 2 instead of WsB - 3

7.) It feels strange to have the strength bonus sometimes in a melee weapons pen, sometimes in the damage and sometimes nowhere...this should be re-thought.

8.) The agility limitation for armour seems too a high number (restriction should be harder)

At the moment, for most armour it is not a restriction at all, if it is not a Agility-heavy character (Ag 50+).

This would both help to restrict the OP position of Agility a little, and to make the choice of armour not only relevent for armour value

Maybe it would also be nice to add 1 or 2 additional armours to have a little more variety

9.) No saving throws against sapping and crippling seems tough...

10.) Shouldnt the Eviscerator be unbalanced ?

11.) Concussive should not be only 1 round, but DoF

12.) Weapon mechandrite should get some kind of bonus

13.) Toxic only 1 round ? Whats the use of detox then ?

Also, in general, I miss rules for applying toxins to weapons. I would like to have some additional toxins that can be used in any toxic weapon as a replacement for the standard toxic toxin, with some rules how to do this, incl. How many doses one application has

14.) Does the excessive use of influence loss of 1 Influence bonus mean -10 on the value ?

15.) Please bring back the Mechanicus Implants somehow. Or at least the Potentia Coil.

I just dont feel like a techpriest without it somehow...

I also think that the cap on cybernetics is too hard for techpriests.

Maybe the mechanicus implants can come back with the Adeptus Mechanicus Background and grant additional possible cybernetics ?

I've always been a fan of plasma being single shot. Giving a weapon a burst setting and recharge is silly.

It is how it worked in 1st and 2nd edition 40k. There Plasma Weapons were rapid fire weapons (Following fire and Sustained fire in the respective editions), but they had a recharge time between volleys (2 rounds in 1st edition, 1 in 2nd). It doesn't seem too daft to me. Deal out a lot of energy in a short period of time, and then take a few seconds to charge up or cool down.

And yet you still need to recharge after a single shot. I see what you're saying but the DH1 rules were just untidy.

My main issue with the plasma weapons is that their Pen is way too high.

Thats too much competition for the melta, which is almost replaced by it (besides against really tough armour in tanks and such).

Also, the risk of overheating is too low, as overheating damage can effectively be avoided with 1 AP, this is no real risk in addition to jams. Everybody woth a plasma gun will spare this 1 AP for the shot in case he needs it, and if he didnt need it, use it afterwards for something else.

With 6-8 Pen and a risk of overheating at 91+, this should be a strong weapon still, but with certain risks to be aware of.

What if it required a teck use test to get it working after an overheat?

Just replying to your number 8 point. I also thought that the agility mods for the armours should be more restrictive, but then I think it should be taken into account that a lot of the weapons right now will just pen through any armour you have. I think I was the only person sad to see the pen values bumped up so much in the first update, but I don't really like fact that once people are fighting high level characters or characters with strong weapons, its a better idea to just go into battle naked, due to the ridiculous pen values. Armour is already really weak in this game; I don't think it needs anymore weakening.

I definitely agree that pen values being jacked up so much was a sh*tty move. The mentality that guns should penetrate armour value completely has always baffled me, any armour should be better than being naked. But it barely is under the current rules, armour loses all relevance after low levels.

Just replying to your number 8 point. I also thought that the agility mods for the armours should be more restrictive, but then I think it should be taken into account that a lot of the weapons right now will just pen through any armour you have. I think I was the only person sad to see the pen values bumped up so much in the first update, but I don't really like fact that once people are fighting high level characters or characters with strong weapons, its a better idea to just go into battle naked, due to the ridiculous pen values. Armour is already really weak in this game; I don't think it needs anymore weakening.

I was right there with you (and I still am). I really like the Agility cap on armour (and I think the numbers are fine as-is, actually), but the current Penetration values makes the cap much more brutal. Space marines would want bodygloves, 'cause anything short of wearing a tank is pointless vs. powerful weapons.

If I could have my way (which is doubtful), I'd do this:

1. Remove Penetration. Completely.
2. Boost weapon damage accordingly (not 1:1, but maybe 1 dmg per 2 pen, except Plasma which is already insane - must be judged case-by-case).
3. Make a special quality, Penetrating(X), which allows you to ignore X armour. Let Sniper Rifles have it with X=Pb.
4. Make a special quality, Melta(X), which gives you Penetrating(X) (or ignores armour completely, if they really want to keep that - I prefer flexible systems, though; compromise would be X=70 or something similarly stupid) when at half range.

Penetration vs. Toughness vs. Damage vs. Armour is currently the single slowest element of combat, in my experience. Remove it and combat will be much faster. Special rules can cover the few exceptions where actually ignoring armour makes sense.

Armour would be universally useful, Toughness Bonus would be relatively less powerful, combats would be faster, and children would be singing in the streets. I think.

I wholly agree with you. Pen has always seemed pointless to me as a general stat, because honestly, if a weapon is going to slag armour, it's logically going to lay a lot of hurt onto flesh too. I'm sure melta is going to hurt a lot more on bare skin than through carapace or flak. There's very few cases where the excess penetration wouldn't logically carry over to flat extra damage.

I wholly agree with you. Pen has always seemed pointless to me as a general stat, because honestly, if a weapon is going to slag armour, it's logically going to lay a lot of hurt onto flesh too. I'm sure melta is going to hurt a lot more on bare skin than through carapace or flak. There's very few cases where the excess penetration wouldn't logically carry over to flat extra damage.

The one purpose that I think Penetration has, is making anti-vehicle weapons not be incredibly over-powered against people. If you just make Meltagun damage 1d10+50, nobody is ever going to use anything else, even if you stick incredible downsides to it.

For snipers, I see it as finding that little opening in their armour. I like that snipers are rewarded for having a high Perception.

I agree that Penetration isn't realistic in itself, but I think it does serve a gameplay purpose in a few cases.

I could really get on board with the idea of eliminating pen completely. It would also make explaining damage a LOT easier to new players. (Subtract your armour and toughness bonus from damage versus subtract the pen value from armour then add the remaining armour and toughness bonus and then subtract that from damage). I think it could be cool to give weapons some qualities to hurt armour. Bring back melta weapons ignoring armour at close range. Bump up the damage for plasma weapons. Give bolters something like "on a 9 or 10 damage roll, ignore armour". I really like this idea.

Well, I still think there is a place for Pen, but much more limited. Pen should only really be used when the penetration is not achieved through sheer extra damage, as that can be accounted for in extra damage.

AP rounds for Autoguns and the like seem obvious choices for Pen, as often armour piercing rounds actually do less damage to the target, but are better at penetrating armour (the harder rounds being less likely to deform on impact and not as easily deflected around the target's body).

I wholly agree with you. Pen has always seemed pointless to me as a general stat, because honestly, if a weapon is going to slag armour, it's logically going to lay a lot of hurt onto flesh too. I'm sure melta is going to hurt a lot more on bare skin than through carapace or flak. There's very few cases where the excess penetration wouldn't logically carry over to flat extra damage.

Hellguns in TT ignore Power Armor but are no more likely to kill you than a lasgun so there is a need for pen. This does not change the fact that DH and co have had some odd weapon stats from time to time and DH2 is set to be the overachiever of the family.

Well, I still think there is a place for Pen, but much more limited. Pen should only really be used when the penetration is not achieved through sheer extra damage, as that can be accounted for in extra damage.

AP rounds for Autoguns and the like seem obvious choices for Pen, as often armour piercing rounds actually do less damage to the target, but are better at penetrating armour (the harder rounds being less likely to deform on impact and not as easily deflected around the target's body).

I can also think of flamers where if it gets on your skin it's agonizing and deadly, but it has next to no penetrating ability vs. flak or power armour, etc.

Whips would be another one. Can tear the skin right off you, but I can't ever see it getting through an armour plate.

There are some definite oddities in the existing Pen values, though. Why do knives, whips and warhammers all have the same Pen?

Hellguns in TT ignore Power Armor but are no more likely to kill you than a lasgun so there is a need for pen. This does not change the fact that DH and co have had some odd weapon stats from time to time and DH2 is set to be the overachiever of the family.

I'd argue that using TT for any sort of rules basis is iffy at best. WHY are they great at penetrating armour but no better at killing unarmoured foes? Sounds like a game balance thing, not a fluff thing.

Hellguns in TT ignore Power Armor but are no more likely to kill you than a lasgun so there is a need for pen. This does not change the fact that DH and co have had some odd weapon stats from time to time and DH2 is set to be the overachiever of the family.

I'd argue that using TT for any sort of rules basis is iffy at best. WHY are they great at penetrating armour but no better at killing unarmoured foes? Sounds like a game balance thing, not a fluff thing.

Reading between the lines and references to advanced optics - a tighter, more penetrating beam. If you're naked and you get hit by a laser bolt 2cm wide, or a more powerful one 1cm wide, the chance of damaging you might be the same (could even be greater for the wider beam, just as hollow-points are more dangerous). But your armour might not stop the 1cm beam where it would stop the 2cm beam. Your body is going to be damaged the same either way by a beam that makes it through. But a wider beam might not.

Fair point, I suppose. I still think that ultimately, reduding pen to weapon traits for specific weapons would increase ease of damage calculation a ton, and would arguably make the game more enjoyable by making armour more of an appealing choice.

Fair point, I suppose. I still think that ultimately, reduding pen to weapon traits for specific weapons would increase ease of damage calculation a ton, and would arguably make the game more enjoyable by making armour more of an appealing choice.

This I can agre with for the most part.

Fair point, I suppose. I still think that ultimately, reduding pen to weapon traits for specific weapons would increase ease of damage calculation a ton, and would arguably make the game more enjoyable by making armour more of an appealing choice.

It would make things simpler and it would make armour more appealing in a lot of circumstances.

My feeling though (and this is off the cuff without running numbers), is that Pen lets you scale the danger of weapons in a more nuanced way. Suppose I want Shuriken catapults to slice through even power armour the way they can in the fluff. Well fine, I can give them a damage rating that takes power armour into account and makes it able to do that. But for every other character on the battlefield who isn't wearing Power Armour, the Shuriken Catapult is now a weapon of terrifying DEATH. (Okay, more of a weapon of terrifying death, but you get my point).

With Pen, armour is a really useful thing that most characters will want but some will not for character / agility reasons. Without Pen, armour is something you have to have because either weapons are scaled to be dangerous with armoured characters or they're not.

I do have to agree - accounting for pen as far as damage values go is one of the sticking points for time lost/inaccuracies in damage accounting.

That said, there just feels like there should be a place for "AP weapons" that do "normal" damage but ignore some armour, and other weapons that do high damage, but suffer greater loss if armour is present.

Unfortunately, that's essentially what primitive as a quality was, and that was even worse.

I figure the amount of weapons that explicitly exist to slice right through armour are the minority, though, so they can be handled by special weapon qualities, rather than a dedicated stat. I was thinking that having Penetrating like it was when this beta launched (half armour) would be interesting for some weapons, although provisions would have to be made for vehicles to not be annihilated by it.

It might complicate things but why couldn't armor be strong or weak against certain types of weaponry?

I figure the amount of weapons that explicitly exist to slice right through armour are the minority, though, so they can be handled by special weapon qualities, rather than a dedicated stat. I was thinking that having Penetrating like it was when this beta launched (half armour) would be interesting for some weapons, although provisions would have to be made for vehicles to not be annihilated by it.

Yeah, but the trouble is without some drastic shifts to the damage rules and armour values, doesn't it make it very difficult to not make weapons either unable to penetrate armour or shockingly deadly to those without?

It might complicate things but why couldn't armor be strong or weak against certain types of weaponry?

Eclipse Phase does this quite elegantly and it's actually not that complicated. All armour has two values for Kinetic and Energy. So for example: "4/7" Excellent armour against lasers, etc., but only so-so against people with knives, bullets, etc. Very simple.

It would potentially add a very interesting new tactical element to equipment and weapon choices and it would really highlight the different technical levels of armour. For example, Mesh could be good at both Energy and Kinetic. Light Carapace as good or slightly better against Kinetic, but worse against Energy weapons. Suddenly you have two types of armour that are roughly equivalent in some circumstances, but the advanced nature of one is clearly apparent.