I think everyone wants something slightly different, and likes / dislikes each part differently.
I'd prefer more simplicity throughout, but that leaves people who want more crunch and detail high and dry. I've found it easier to simplify detailed and complex rules than to take a simple rule and add complexity to it, so perhaps a compromise could be the rulebook written towards complexity and then have an appendix of simplified 'house rules' or alternatives.
A wound system without Unnatural Toughness or heck, even counting Toughness at all would be the best. Having an natural source of damage absorbtion is just expoitable when the stat gets raised to high.
Thats why I really like the new steps FFG is taking in the second edition. And in b4 the "it is like ping, ping, ping DEAD", it was and is so in DH right now with the insane amounts of TB and wounds an character can accumulate. Nothing happends for the first four or five solid hits then suddenly his wounds are depleted and it is a minus 8 on the critical hit chart and the character explodes.
The less toughness lowers damage he better I say.
"So why do you want to nuke Damage dice and fold Pen into it?
Because Rolling dice takes time and to myself and the people I play with, isn't interesting in and of itself. I have no problem rolling lots of dice if there's good reason for it, but if damage has to be variable it seems to me the logical place to go looking for randomness would be the to-hit roll, not a separate damage roll.
But won't it be a horrendous amount of work?
Neah... As long as there's a single, universally applicable method it isn't a big deal."
I'm very sorry but I hate this idea. The lack of disctinction between difficulty to hit a target and the difficulty to hurt the target it what put me off D20 systems for the last 15 years. Personally I enjoy rolling damage dice because each step adds to the narrative of the game. I know my character is a great shot (for example) so let me know I can hit the guy bearing down on me with a chain axe, let something else determine if that shot stops him before he cleaves my head open and feasts on my head meats in the name of his foul God.
Edited by CailI like that even a 1 damage hit will create a +5 on future damages.
This helps to make SP and laser weapons still dangerous to a certain degree, even against a maxed out toughness.
Also, high end weapon medium term damages are limited by this mechanism.
This adds well to the balance, making all kinds of weapons interesting in different context.
Also the new way to use righteous fury is really interesting - especially combined with the lethality for novice and elite npcs (the vengeful weapon trait adds as a nice sniper mechanism).
I like that even a 1 damage hit will create a +5 on future damages.
But it creates the cheesy mechanic that five 1-point 'scratches' on your arms and legs (injuries that characters in action-oriented fiction would largely ignore) are drastically more dangerous than one solid gunshot to the head...
I'm not going to miss the experimental 'all-narrative' damage system from the Beta . If the new 'compatible' 2E wants to combine some minor wound effects to 'hit point'-style damage, fine; but the Beta system as-is just doesn't work for me...
I think a lot of the issues with the beta system could be fixed by making low damage hits inflict fatigue, and no wound modifier. Scrap the role of toughness in damage soak, and make it so that any damage below your TB only inflicts fatigue.
I mean, I'm all for replacing the system entirely (I already have, myself), but that fix alleviates a lot of problems with the current system.
The problem with making low hits inflict fatigue damage is that the average starting character can only take 12 levels of fatigue before they die anyway.
Edited by CailYes, but dying due to excess fatigue makes a lot of sense. And you're going to pass out before you end up dying, which is fairly realistic. It stops minor hits gradually leading to your head exploding, which is what I'm pretty sure is most peoples' problem.
I'm not sure it does stop the death by bug bites thing. In DH1 I've had plenty of players that are fatigued from other sources die from fatigue on a high D10 roll from a blast or something (we called it dying of system shock) though I will admit its less likely now willpower is factored into the fatigue threshold
Edited by Cail
I like that even a 1 damage hit will create a +5 on future damages.
But it creates the cheesy mechanic that five 1-point 'scratches' on your arms and legs (injuries that characters in action-oriented fiction would largely ignore) are drastically more dangerous than one solid gunshot to the head...
I'm not going to miss the experimental 'all-narrative' damage system from the Beta . If the new 'compatible' 2E wants to combine some minor wound effects to 'hit point'-style damage, fine; but the Beta system as-is just doesn't work for me...
I think it is not that way, that a 1-damage-hit is a scratch.
It overcame your armour AND overcame your toughness, which means, it is able to hurt your body bad enough to have an impact.
A scratch would be something with more damage than your armour, and less than your toughness, and is already ignored with the current rules.
Everything above armour+toughness is some serious damage - how serious on impact is specified more with the value that goes over it.
But the +5 stacking emphasizes that every hit that is scored that way is a serious one, and thats good in my oppinion.
I, for one, happen to like Tom Cruise's proposal, here:
It's much like my own House Rule, although I will say that Toughness should not only dictate Minor, Major, and Grievous Injury status, but also allow you to resist an Injury. A Toughness Test, modified by the Injury type, and the PC/creature shrugs the Injury. Fail the Test, then sustain the Injury.
I like the concept of a woundless system. I just didn't like the implementation in the beta.
I don't have any viable suggestions for an alternative. All of the proposed systems I've seen center on TB. But I can see even more aggressive TB padding would be the sure result of that, placing characters with more expensive Toughness advances and bad initial rolls at an ever-increasing disadvantage.
I'm not entirely sure how to successfully work in a system, and as the beta demonstrated problems can crop up that didn't show themselves at the concept and development level. I don't think the developers even anticipated the rate-of-fire versus high damage arguments that came up.
A hitpoint type system has been a tried and true strategy for more than 30 years now, probably for a reason.
Reason being it's easy, whereas hitpoint-free systems do require treading new ground, and often screwing up. Issue comes when people tear the new ideas down instead of just trying to improve them.
I think a hitpointless system could easily prove superior to a hitpoint one, it just takes a bit of work, and feedback that doesn't equate to 'it's broken, get rid of it'.
The gradual refinement and evolution of the 40K/WHFRP1-2 RPG system has been a slow and well managed process. It is to me one the finest systems in the industry and one of my longstanding personal favorites. The last few iterations have been some of the best. In no way does it need to be completely gutted and replaced with something completely different, especially not something unwieldy and alien that is a complete departure from the current nearly perfect standard.
These disparate innovations that seem have been nearly irrevocably placed upon us by this beta release has absolutely no grounds for existence. Innovation is not a terrible thing in and of itself but this particualr shift in mechanics rankles me to no end. I have absolutely no desire to be alienated from this program, this project or the continued existence of this or any other 40k RPG line but that is exactly what the outcome will be if the wounds system isn't reverted back to what we've all come to rely upon in the various incarnations of warhammer RPGs. It's integral to my enjoyment, it forms part of the mental mechanics and understanding of the 40k universe to me. Not the numbers themselves mind you, but the actualization of the numbers.
The wound system as it stands (pre-beta) is nearly perfect in my opinion, for whats its worth I really like the shift from actions and half/actions to AP's. I like the addition of talent trees. I can get behind these changes as they are more 'refinements' rather than rebuilding. Rebuilding makes me feel this isn't really 40k anymore, it would be more like fluffy bunny-loops in watership down the RPG. The arguements about why these changes shouldn't be made have been peppered across this forum, in multiple threads over and over again so I see no need to elaborate on them.
That being said I could see an OPTIONAL sidebar detailing a simple and easy system for narrative damage include for PC's ONLY.
What exactly is it about the wound system that makes the game 40k, at all? You didn't make much of a point other than 'I don't like it', which is useless as feedback.
The old wound system is just a mechanic, and honestly not one that represents the tone of the setting particularly well at all. Characters being debilitated by hits and dying quickly suits the tone of 40k a lot more than characters sponging up hits until they suddenly lose a limb.
Edited by Tom CruiseWhat exactly is it about the wound system that makes the game 40k, at all? You didn't make much of a point other than 'I don't like it', which is useless as feedback.
The old wound system is just a mechanic, and honestly not one that represents the tone of the setting particularly well at all. Characters being debilitated by hits and dying quickly suits the tone of 40k a lot more than characters sponging up hits until they suddenly lose a limb.
Good point.
I like both Tom Cruise proposal (if he'd add characteristic losses *hehe*) and the current beta wound system better than the old one.
The real effects come to late (and often will lead to more or less direct dying before any real effect occurs) - I prefer a rising level of effects, starting early with minor ones.
Just "losing hit points" is not really atmospheric.
Edited by GauntZeroThe old wound system is just a mechanic, and honestly not one that represents the tone of the setting particularly well at all. Characters being debilitated by hits and dying quickly suits the tone of 40k a lot more than characters sponging up hits until they suddenly lose a limb.
This is no different than what you and I have made: a mechanic that represents PC sponging hits until losing a limb. The only real differences are that in our proposals the PC loses his/her limb much, much faster, and any disability suffered should be seen as a blessing when compared to the otherwise blindingly swift death, or dies from one solid hit.
We've just moved to Critical Tables to the front and middle, instead of the back of the process.
Edited by Brother OrpheoWhich I think is an important change, honestly! Our proposals basically make it that you can only 'sponge' hits if they're suitably weak, and if you're very well protected to boot. In a 40k game, no one should be soaking up bullets and be no worse for it. That might suit DnD or a similarly heroic style of game, but it doesn't suit the grimdark, violent setting that is Warhammer 40k, at all.
Which I think is an important change, honestly! Our proposals basically make it that you can only 'sponge' hits if they're suitably weak, and if you're very well protected to boot. In a 40k game, no one should be soaking up bullets and be no worse for it. That might suit DnD or a similarly heroic style of game, but it doesn't suit the grimdark, violent setting that is Warhammer 40k, at all.
Totally agree - it is the shift to the front that is badly needed to show the dangers of combat better.
Also, the effects should be varified enough to be interesting and not always the same (even if this sometimes means to lookup tables).
Edited by GauntZeroBring back numbers
Bring back numbers
There still are numbers. It just includes effects earlier on.
Bring back numbers
If you mean HP, then I really hope the devs don't listen. You already have one in 1st edition that can be used verbatim with 2nd edition.
The current 2e system DOES have numbers, anyway. They're just multiples of five.
I'm sorry for necroposting, but I'm testing BETA with my group now and I just want to double check couple of things with more experienced GMs and Players. Does +5 stacks for every wound takenon a previous turn? Let's say an acolyte is shooting from his autogun spending 2 AP (RoF is 2, so he should be able to hit 4 times with a successfull roll). He scores 4 hits (damage actually exceeds Tb and Armour of the large mutant), determines wound effects, etc and then if during the next round acolyte scores 2 more hits, does he get +20 (the mutant suffered 4 wounds last turn) or +25 (4 wounds last turn + 2 wounds this turn) to determine wound effects? .
To be honest with you at first I thought that each round you get +5 on a table no matter how many actual hits went through during the previous round... Like, mutant gets four wounds from autogun, then gets two wounds next round and you have +5 to lookup the wound effects and then on third round you get +10 and so on.
It's +5 for every wound that the target has taken before the current turn.
In your example it'd be +20 (4x5) for each of the 2 new wounds. Next turn, if anyone hits him, it's +30 (6x5).
EDIT: Actually, every wound the target has taken prior to the current attack . Clarification is important in the case of dual-wielding, but otherwise not, since that's the only situation where you can get multiple attacks in a turn.
Edited by MagnusPihl