Pg. 65, Book of Judgement

"This article of clothing adds +1 AP to the arms and body of the wearer, and can be worn over other armour, provided it has been tailor-made for the wearer and their equipment."

Pg. 66, Book of Judgement

Name Location(s) Covered AP Wt Cost Availability

Ballistic Cloth Surcoat Head, Arms +1 1kg 275 Rare

So, does it protect the arms and body, the head and arms, or all three?

It's a coat, so I would surmise that it's supposed to cover the Arms and Body.

Historical surcoat covers the body and , partially , legs .

After googling Surcoat, I really wish that there was a picture of an Adeptus Arbites/Judge Ballistic Surcoat. That has the potential to look absolutely awesome.

I am now imagining an Advanced Materials/Lumen-Heraldry Ballistic Surcoat from an Adeptus Arbites Courthouse Precinct on a Feudal World. Preferably with a pair of matching heavy boots, best-craftsmanship silken Shock-Gloves and a baller hat.

Maybe a best-craftsmanship Targeting Monocle, too. For Verispex capabilities such as Preysense, Photo-Visor and Magnocular, counting as a Mono-Sight.

Oh, and an Auto-Flintlock w/ Maglev Impeller.

...goddammit, now you've made me want to make this character and suddenly it's a concept.

Dammit.

After googling Surcoat, I really wish that there was a picture of an Adeptus Arbites/Judge Ballistic Surcoat. That has the potential to look absolutely awesome.

I'm pretty sure it's based on this miniature:

The Head location is almost certainly a typo and supposed to be body.

That said, I recommend GMs think very carefully before allowing the 'stacking' armours from BoJ into their campaigns. The Surcoat and Lockshield, layered over Enforcer Light Carapace, gives an Armour value of 10 to most locations- combined with even average Toughness, that equates to immunity from most conventional weapons. This is why the 'stacking' of armour is strictly forbidden in the core Rulebook (-and every other iteration of WH40KRP , for that matter). So, unless you want every cultist your Acolytes run across from now on to be either a master marksman who can specifically target less-armoured areas, or have them all armed with high-end AP weapons from now on, I advise you not to allow 'stacking' armour. Given the rampant Power Creep in the later DH supplements, it is absolutely not safe to assume that everything presented therein has been carefully balanced and is not game-breaking...

That said, I recommend GMs think very carefully before allowing the 'stacking' armours from BoJ into their campaigns. The Surcoat and Lockshield, layered over Enforcer Light Carapace, gives an Armour value of 10 to most locations- combined with even average Toughness, that equates to immunity from most conventional weapons.

True, in a regular Dark Heresy campaign, such armor values may be overpowered. On the other hand, there are ways for bad guys to kill the heroes, bypassing the armor. Any Necromunda player will tell you to always beware of heights and vats of corrosive chemicals in the Underhive.

True, in a regular Dark Heresy campaign, such armor values may be overpowered. On the other hand, there are ways for bad guys to kill the heroes, bypassing the armor.

Yes-yes, "Judgeslayer" Handcannon from the same BoJ. 100 thrones, Average availability pistol with Pen 6 (SIX! L ike a goddamn P lasma Gun ! )

True, in a regular Dark Heresy campaign, such armor values may be overpowered. On the other hand, there are ways for bad guys to kill the heroes, bypassing the armor.

Yes-yes, "Judgeslayer" Handcannon from the same BoJ. 100 thrones, Average availability pistol with Pen 6 (SIX! L ike a goddamn P lasma Gun ! )

-Which is why I say unless you want every single run-of-the-mill cultist from now on to have to be unrealistically optimized to counter an armour value comparable to Space Marine power armour, GMs should consider maintaining the core rules on armour and ban ill-conceived rule-violating 'stacking' armour from BoJ .

-Which is why I say unless you want every single run-of-the-mill cultist from now on to have to be unrealistically optimized to counter an armour value comparable to Space Marine power armour, GMs should consider maintaining the core rules on armour and ban ill-conceived rule-violating 'stacking' armour from BoJ .

And here I disagree. As a GM, I find I have plenty of things I can throw at a bunch of "optimised" acolytes. They're called Orks, Eldar, Carnosaurs, Rogue Psykers, the Slaugth, a Fenksworld Pit-Thing, Murder-servitors, and apocalypse artifacts. If your players get tougher, throw tougher enemies at them.

And if that doesn't work, use the horde rules from Black Crusade.

As a GM, I find I have plenty of things I can throw at a bunch of "optimised" acolytes.

Sure, there are lots of 'Boss Monsters' that can menace 'min-maxed' PCs; but near immunity to anything short of Elites or Boss Monsters really guts the game of a lot of its 'grim darkness'. Even epic 40K heroes like Inquisitor Eisenhorn or Colonel-Commissar Gaunt have to take precautions against common sentries- but not a PC fully kitted out with BoJ 's stacking armours: he can just walk up to autogun-armed sentries without a second thought. So, again, unless the GM wants every single encounter from now on to have to be unrealistically contrived to counter min-maxed armour (a Carnosaur or Slaught guarding a warehouse?!), I recommend maintaining the Core Rulebook's prohibition on stacking armour...

Personally, I'm a big fan of not "balancing" encounters at all. If the PCs get a drop on a cult armed with autopistols and primitive swords while they're wearing carapace armor and toting boltguns and flamers, it should be a cakewalk. Making all encounters inherently challenging is that silly idea from D&D that defeats the whole purpose of PCs getting stronger in the first place. If it's logical that the enemy can throw something challenging at the PCs, then it is a challenging encounter. If the whole plot revolves around shooting cultists that have no way to muster an adequate response, then probably the Inquisitor has sent his experienced and well-armed Acolytes after the wrong cult - surely there's some noble heretic with bolter-toting bodyguards around to make Acolytes' lives difficult again

Personally, I'm a big fan of not "balancing" encounters at all. If the PCs get a drop on a cult armed with autopistols and primitive swords while they're wearing carapace armor and toting boltguns and flamers, it should be a cakewalk. Making all encounters inherently challenging is that silly idea from D&D that defeats the whole purpose of PCs getting stronger in the first place. If it's logical that the enemy can throw something challenging at the PCs, then it is a challenging encounter. If the whole plot revolves around shooting cultists that have no way to muster an adequate response, then probably the Inquisitor has sent his experienced and well-armed Acolytes after the wrong cult - surely there's some noble heretic with bolter-toting bodyguards around to make Acolytes' lives difficult again

I completely agree with your general sentiment and logic, but at the same time, as Adeptus-B described, it is ridiculous that an Acolyte is supposed to be able to walk up to an auto-gun sentry without a second thought, and just soak up the bullets.

While I favour "natural" or "believable" encounters over "balanced" encounters, it is important that the game itself has a sense of internal consistency and natural balance that makes encounters plausible or believable no matter whether the encounter is contrived or not.

And the stacking armour rules in BoJ completely breaks that, more often than not.

When facing a bullet-hail or even a well-placed shot from a single marksman, nothing except full-coverage power armour should be able to completely shrug that off.

As a house rule, I've made the Ballistic Surcoat in a game of mine only work against weapons without a pen value. Any weapon with a pen value would simply strike through to the real armor being worn (if any).

This makes the Ballistic Surcoat great against stub and SP weapons (as intended), most Las weapons and melee weapons, but fails to help against Bolters, Meltas, Plasma, and the assortment of other high impact weapons.

Personally, I'm a big fan of not "balancing" encounters at all. If the PCs get a drop on a cult armed with autopistols and primitive swords while they're wearing carapace armor and toting boltguns and flamers, it should be a cakewalk. Making all encounters inherently challenging is that silly idea from D&D that defeats the whole purpose of PCs getting stronger in the first place. If it's logical that the enemy can throw something challenging at the PCs, then it is a challenging encounter. If the whole plot revolves around shooting cultists that have no way to muster an adequate response, then probably the Inquisitor has sent his experienced and well-armed Acolytes after the wrong cult - surely there's some noble heretic with bolter-toting bodyguards around to make Acolytes' lives difficult again

I completely agree with your general sentiment and logic, but at the same time, as Adeptus-B described, it is ridiculous that an Acolyte is supposed to be able to walk up to an auto-gun sentry without a second thought, and just soak up the bullets.

What's so ridiculous about armor being effective? More importantly, why would the Acolyte invest in armor if it wasn't effective?

While I favour "natural" or "believable" encounters over "balanced" encounters, it is important that the game itself has a sense of internal consistency and natural balance that makes encounters plausible or believable no matter whether the encounter is contrived or not.

When carapace armor enters play and people buy up Toughness to 40+, the chances of random gangers armed with autoguns to be anything more than a nuisance to the team begin approaching zero. I see nothing inherently unbelievable with some extra protection asserting what's almost a foregone conclusion anyway.

And the stacking armour rules in BoJ completely breaks that, more often than not.

Stacking of armor (much less situational, or limited, than what BoJ offers) is a thing in 40k RPG since at least Rogue Trader core, years before BoJ. Being able to create a ridiculously tough character that can laugh in the face of small arms fire has been a thing long before, beginning with IH's Mechanicus Secutor.

This would be a bad thing - if the game didn't evolve to accommodate such options. But it did, steadily over the years as new 40k games introduced new solutions and those solutions slowly seeped into DH.

The kind of play experience you and Adeptus-B advocate has been discontinued long ago. There's nothing gamebreaking about BoJ content unless one insists on using it solely with the corebook. The game has moved on, so should we.

When facing a bullet-hail or even a well-placed shot from a single marksman, nothing except full-coverage power armour should be able to completely shrug that off.

That's pretty arbitrary if you asked me. Why power armor and not a full-coverage carapace with extra reinforcement and a ballistic shield?

The kind of play experience you and Adeptus-B advocate has been discontinued long ago. There's nothing gamebreaking about BoJ content unless one insists on using it solely with the corebook. The game has moved on, so should we.

If that were true, all of the post- BoJ gamelines would have overturned the prohibition on stacking armour; instead, every one of them- up to and including DH2 - has been careful to maintain the stacking prohibition. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because WH40KRP is supposed to simulate the 40K universe, and one thru-line of all modern (3rd ed.+) depictions of 40K is that no-one short of Space Marines gets to ignore the threat posed by conventional arms. Even bad-ass mega-heroes like Commissar Gaunt (who kills Chaos Space Marines in sword fights!) still have to sneak up on common sentries rather that just bounce bullets off their chests like Superman. The ability to maintain the threat from common grunts with guns is built into the system: unlike D&D and its many imitators, where 'hit points' perpetually increase, a WH40K PC's Wounds are unlikely to increase to the point where even high-level heroes can afford to ignore moderate threats- just like the larger-than-life heroes in 40K novels! This is why there are so many restrictions built into Light Power Armour- even if it weren't for the crippling expense and rarity, the very limited power supply makes it clear that the game designers intended it to be used only for 'special occasions'- because that level of protection would be game-breaking in an investigation-based RPG if it were commonplace.

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I think that piecemeal armour cobbled together by mere mortals which offers protection comparable to sacred Space Marine power armour violates both the spirit and the letter of the 40K universe. "In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future, MinMaxing Powergamers can afford to ignore most stuff..."

And, let's be clear, the stacking armours in BoJ were not carefully conceived as part of a deliberate strategy to 'take the game to another level'- if so, the logical place for them would be in Ascention . No, they were created because the freelancer FFG hired to write the Armoury section of BoJ did some research on the Adeptus Arbites and found that all of their iconic gear (carapace armour, combat shotguns, Executioner shells, shockmauls, etc) have already been included in previous books; so with the deadline fast approaching, the freelancer pulled some ill-conceived crap out of his backside to satisfy the word-count he was contractually committed to.

Let's try approaching it from the other direction: allowing stacking armour removes a huge number of tools from the GM's toolbox, as most conventional weapons and adversaries (-even some minor daemons!) can't overcome the protection of Leatherwort, a Balistic Surcoat, and a Synford-Pattern Lock-Shield layered over mid-grade armour, and thus are no longer viable threats. Even if we ignore how this goes against 40K lore, and we ignore how silly it is for cultists to suddenly be equipped with absurd anti-armour kit starting the same day that the PCs invest in their MinMaxed armour combo, and while we are it at ignore the fact that any party members who don't similarly MinMax (either because the PC can't afford it or the player doesn't want to wallow in cheese) will be auto-killed by the Carnosaurs that now replace guards on every cultist hide-out- even if we ignore all of that -- what is the supposed benefit of allowing stacking armour to the game that outweighs the drastic disadvantages...? And why don't any WH40KRP game designers who have come after BoJ agree with you...?

[...]

That's pretty arbitrary if you asked me. Why power armor and not a full-coverage carapace with extra reinforcement and a ballistic shield?

Because a full-coverage (...is there even such a thing?) carapace armour with extra reinforcement (also full-coverage?) and a ballistic shield is still just a carapace, with extra reinforcement, and a shield.

Whereas a power armour is a piece of reinforced defensive shielding so thick, so dense, and so heavy that it requires internal servos, pneumatic pistons and electrically motivated fibre bundles to even move the centimeter-thick (decimeter?) ceramite platings.

Without power, most brands of power armour becomes an exceedingly expensive (although durable) coffin.

If what you describe was ever intended to even approach the defensive capabilities of power armour, the enforcers, marshals and judges of the Adeptus Arbites wouldn't be able to move, let alone pursue criminals.

Nor would the Astartes, the Imperial Guard, any Stormtrooper or Sororitas even think of encasing themselves in power-armour.

Why bother, when we can slap on a trenchcoat and a shield to some carapace?

The kind of play experience you and Adeptus-B advocate has been discontinued long ago. There's nothing gamebreaking about BoJ content unless one insists on using it solely with the corebook. The game has moved on, so should we.

If that were true, all of the post- BoJ gamelines would have overturned the prohibition on stacking armour; instead, every one of them- up to and including DH2 - has been careful to maintain the stacking prohibition.

And I guess The Flesh Is Weak Talent doesn't exist? And the Astartes Storm Shield is just a figment of my imagination? Both predate BoJ.

You're defending a rule that pretty much never existed.

[...]

That's pretty arbitrary if you asked me. Why power armor and not a full-coverage carapace with extra reinforcement and a ballistic shield?

Because a full-coverage (...is there even such a thing?) carapace armour with extra reinforcement (also full-coverage?) and a ballistic shield is still just a carapace, with extra reinforcement, and a shield.

Heavy carapace is just one AP less than light powered armor, two points less than heavy. It's almost as if the carapace, a futuristic plate armor made from impossible alloys, was meant to be extremely effective! As in, "standard issue for best soldiers outside of Astartes and the elite lawkeeping army" effective.

Sheer degree of protection isn't the greatest asset of the powered armor - it's the fact that it can be worn indefinitely without any fatigue, and enhances users' strength on top of that! Protection is certainly nice, but it's not a completely different level - rather, a distinct edge.

I can't help but think, the "issue" of players getting too careless due to optimized gear is much better solved by switching to superior Righteous Fury rules from Only War.

I feel as if we have gotten far off topic at the moment. If you wish to discuss GM strategy about high-armored characters, take it to the GM forum. And there are other places to complain about who wrote what for various products.

In any case, thank you to those people who helped decide what a ballistic surcoat actually was.