This should be looked at.

Everything beyond 4 is scaling too fast, leading too extreme values at the end.

I think it would better to scale a little more like this:

1-4: remain as is

5: 50kg

6: 90kg

7: 140kg

8: 210kg

9: 320kg

10: 450kg

Remember: this is carrying capacity - not maximum liftig capacity.

Therefore it should not be too extremely high.

It's worth noting a trooper in Afghanistan on a two day op may have to carry about 60 kilos worth of gear. For that, assuming you're not using the IG background, you'd need 60 strength. 60 is well beyond what can be expected of a person, really.

I agree with the scaling issue, if anything the curve should flatten, as weight grows faster than strength on increasing size (why ants are super powerful while elephants have to have stiff legs - although this game doesn't have to be realistic).

I also think that toughness should be the main stat for carrying capacity, as it is far more important than strength in the long run.

Lift could still be strength based. :-)

It's worth noting a trooper in Afghanistan on a two day op may have to carry about 60 kilos worth of gear. For that, assuming you're not using the IG background, you'd need 60 strength. 60 is well beyond what can be expected of a person, really.

A trooper in afghanistan is like IG, so it should be compared like one. As a soldier you are trained to carry more over a long distance as an civilian - at least I couldnt carry nearly that much.

So, an IG would need 40 to carry it, and still could carry quite some more accourding to my table.

A non-IG with 50 could still carry 50kg, quite enough.

The line between toughness and strength could indeed be discussed.

As toughness is used more often in other situations in the game though - I maybe would stick to strength still to give strength more use.

Agreed on that last point. A 'ranged combatant' still wanting at least a reasonable strength in order to carry armour and heavy weapon seems sensible. Anyone intending to fight will still buy toughness by default.

Also agree that the top end needs to be thought about. This will presumably become the 'core engine' for any updates to the other games, and one of my pet hates for Deathwatch is a 'carrying capacity' table that the average marine falls off the top end of the moment you buy him a single stat increase.

Even a deathwatch space marines couldnt carry 1 or 2 tons for a longer time without getting any fatigue or penalties.

For Marines, the Table might be made longer though, maybe till 12 or so, which could finalize in a carrying limit of 1000kg at 12.

Especially between 4 and 7 (the hights players may well achieve), the scaling should be not too fast.

On the carrying capacity, I think a soldier carrying 70kg of gear could be considered "encumbered". They might be able carry it for extended periods, but doesn't mean it isn't more tiring than if they weren't carrying it, and it will certainly slow them down. Now, I cannot remember the encumbrance rules at the moment, so they may be too harsh for even being slightly over the limit, but if not I certainly would consider a soldier with a full load to be at least minorly encumbered.

Double AP cost for move actions and -10 to every test iirc.

ok, yeah, that seems a bit too much of a penalty.

The penalty is ok.

There are not too much objects that are that heavy.

Some weapons and armours are, but these shouldnt be taken if not strong enough.

Most regular equipment is quite light.

It should be well thought of which equipment is taken with you, and that is good.

This is not a Fantasy RPG where you have a magical backpack which you can use to pack anything into without weight ;D

Somewhat unrelated - and probably already discussed in a topic I can't find - but does ammunition have a weight anymore?

I can't find it anywhere in the book, but it seems like a pretty good counter to PCs buying up endless supplies.

It should have a weight per magazin that is not too mich, but will be felt if too many magazines are carried.

I have no idea though whats a realistic average to go with... 0.5kg ? 0,25kg ? - i really have no idea.

I know that it depends on the weapon and magazin size, ut a simplified average weight should be enough, at least for magazines. Promethium tanks are something different of course...

I don't think ammo weighs anything, RAW. Tracking fractions is a headache nobody should have to deal with.

Speaking of backpacks, the description reads something like, "can hold 15kg of gear". The rules are unclear as to how this applies to your carry capacity. Backpacks usually make it easier to carry a burden, so maybe that 15kg isn't counted against your capacity? If not, why would you ever need a backpack (as in, why is it an Item of consequence in the rules)?

More to the point, while carry capacity scales ridiculously, it also starts way too low. I'm shocked this hasn't been addressed in an update yet. Low-Str characters are encumbered with just their starting gear. Carry weights need to start higher and not increase quadratically.

The beginning isnt too low ! Remember, it is about capacity that you can carry easily over a longer time without being burdened.

If I take myself, I would wanna carry much more than 20kg (incl. Clothing) over a longer time - and I would definitely get tired and be encumbered.

Until 4 it is good as is, just above it gets too high.

Let's take the example of the weakest starting character, a Voidborn, who under the point allocation system for characteristics starts with Str 25. Under the carry capacity table, he can hold only 10kg, "how much he can comfortably carry without being slowed down and fatigued." Let's assume we leave it at that and spend characteristic points on something more befitting a non-combat oriented character.

In DH1, Adepts are one of the weakest characters, generally. The DH2 background, Adeptus Administratum, is pretty much a straight port of this class. Administratum characters start with: Laspistol (2kg), robes (4kg), auto-quill (0kg), chrono (0kg), data-slate (1kg), medi-kit (3kg), for a total of exactly 10kg before the normal starting free items which will almost certainly push him over his limit.

This to me is a problem. I don't usually play with carrying capacity coming into play (unless it egregious), but RAW the starting clothes eat up nearly half of a weaker character's carry capacity. The limit of a weak character's strength is met by his clothes, a sidearm, a tablet computer, and a first-aid kit.

Low-strength carry capacity needs to be increased.

I don't have a problem with the low end carrying capacity, to be honest.

10 Kg is a fair amount to carry indefinitely day-in, day-out, for a 'skinny weakling' character.

My main comment is that the robes weigh 4 Kg. The average weight for a person's clothing - according to a survey done this year - is about one-and-a-bit kilos for an adult male (2.5 pounds to be specific; it was an american survey).

Or to put it another way, the adept is wearing ~ 3 times the weight of normal 'clothing' - which is why it qualfies for a non-trivial armour value. The poor man's probably half dead from heatstroke....

Yeah - the 4kg robes is the problem - what kind of robes are this ?

I too think 10kg of stuff for the low end character is quite ok to go with.

Even I wouldnt like it too much to always carry 10kg around.

And 25 is really the lowest end for an acolyte in DH2 - you need to either have had really bad luck, or you are min/maxing - in the second case you deserve the weakling status even more ;D

Let's set aside minmaxing for the time being. It's entirely possible to end up with a bonus of 2 for attributes with the minus on it just by rolling for it.

Carrying capacity needs to be reworked - item weights are too high (as the robes illustrate) and carry weights are so low as to make carrying gear you'd be resonabally expected to carry is undoable. Why shouldn't the weak adept above be able to carry his starting gear and a staff without being encumbered?

In looking at this I also noticed grenades are listed as 1kg, or 2.2 lbs. In reality grenades weigh less than half a pound, so this 1kg figure is ridiculous. I'd say make grenades weightless, or weigh them by the half-dozen.

There is no minus for rolling.

If you are rolling, you get at least 25+1+1 = 27; and thats really the absolute minimum, which rarely happens.

I would say a Bonus of 3 is really common.

I would also leave the weights as high as they are - it is the task of this limits to force players to actually make a choice what they take with them and not mindlessly collecting things.

And this task it does well - up to a level 4; afterwards it increases too fast.

The chart is derived from an exponential equation (not quadratic as I said before) - plug it into Excel or Google and see for yourself. The issue is not that the second part of the table increases too quickly - it's that the equation is messed up to begin with.

I would say that strength determines max carrying capacity while toughness determines for how long and under what conditions high amounts of weight can be carried for.

4 kg robes can be nothing short of armoured robes in my opinion ;-)

Sounds like a bulletproof monk to me ;D

So we need a 3 + strength bonus + toughness bonus system with lower weight? Does that sound right?

This is one area where I thought D&D handled very well. Build a chart based upon a strength range.

Example 1:

An arbite with a toughness of 45 is carrying 50kg without being slowed. He chases a criminal into a debris ridden part of town making his terrain difficult. The criminal carrying nothing tears off into the debris traveling as fast as he can. A second arbite arrives to help the first but he has has a toughness of 60 and is also carrying a heavy load of equipment (50kg) The first arbite travels at top speed but fatigues out and decides to rest. The second arbite on the other hand it much "tougher" and is able to push on harder and farther than his first companion.

The same could be said for force marching.

Example 2:

An arbite with a strength of 45 lifts a drop down door weighing enough to be considered his max lift. He also has a toughness of 45 and can only hold the door open for a few seconds. His companion whom has a strength of 45 also attempts to lift the door but his toughness is a 60 and therefore can hold the door open for 6 seconds due to his ability to resist fatigue and the pain from the max weight on his muscles.

The numbers are just for example but those with higher toughness scores should be able to perform strenuous activity for longer periods of time than those with lower scores.

In looking at this I also noticed grenades are listed as 1kg, or 2.2 lbs. In reality grenades weigh less than half a pound, so this 1kg figure is ridiculous. I'd say make grenades weightless, or weigh them by the half-dozen.

So far my test campaign has gotten fed up enough to houserule two things even as we continue to test stuff. #1 was the fractional RoAs. The other was base weight of items. We keep a pretty strict accounting of weight and everything being so absurdly heavy got to us.

I just went ahead and arbitrarily halved all of the weights listed in the book rounding down for fractions. This works pretty well and fixes a number of the problems you have mentioned. Even the clunky, heavily armoured aesthetic of 40k (one largely dictated by TT models and often ignored in the art) should not result in the default weight values in my opinion.

I also would not mind some rules/bonuses for the load bearing gear listed in the equipment. After all, why get a backpack unless it helps you carry stuff?