What is a maglev GRAVE ?

Dude you are the last person who should be calling out spelling and grammar errors.

It is the writer's curse to be the least likely person to spot a mistake, for in their mind it is correct, even when a mistake occurred on the translation to paper - or, in this case, screen...

As a reader, I've kind of got "autocorrect" in my brain, so I did not spot that one either. Now that it is mentioned, however, it briefly conjured the mental image of a coffin on a rail.

So far I feel your suggestions (like adopting Inquisitors thresholds system) would be a more drastic change, yes. It would certainly be enough to stop me (personally) adopting a new system that used it because I feel it sucks the life out of the game a bit.

So the other changes are not drastic just because you like them? I realise that this is all about personal preferences, but that should not change anything about the scope of the changes...

I'm curious, though - what is it exactly that makes you feel it would "suck the life out of the game"? Is it the admittedly somewhat more complicated calculation where one would have to calculate from one crit level to another? To me, the new injury calculation does seem unnecessarily complicated, too.

The wounds system has been in a state of constant flux with each edition (I can't think of a single iteration where it hasn't changed) so at this stage thats kind of par for the course.

Where did the wounds system change between DH, RT, DW, BC and OW?

Or are you talking about the spiritual fantasy predecessors to FFG's range of 40k games?

The biggest change (although this is somewhat off topic) that has me confused is the departure from advanced skills and basic skills, leaving it entirely to GM discretion. This seems really odd to me thematically, and it loses some of the flavour. I actually really liked that unjamming a gun was a tech use test, but test use was not a common or basic skill which really emphasised the 'we dont really know how anything works' aspect of the setting for me.

Hum? Unjamming a gun in DH1 was a Ballistic Skill test.

In fairness, neither BS nor Tech Use seem like a "realistic" choice here - one should assume that unjamming a gun requires a certain knowledge with that specific type of weapon. For example, someone who knows how to operate a lasgun might not know what to do if the gas injector of their plasma pistol is clogged with particle residue. Ideally, it should be a sub-skill of either BS or Tech Use (rather BS, as a basic unjam should concern operating the weapon more than repairing it, although a general Tech Use test could serve as a substitute) ...

He's referring to the Technical Knock talent- a TP-only talent that allowed you to instantly unjam a weapon as a half-action. It required X amount of intelligence to acquire, iirc.

It is the writer's curse to be the least likely person to spot a mistake, for in their mind it is correct, even when a mistake occurred on the translation to paper - or, in this case, screen...

As a reader, I've kind of got "autocorrect" in my brain, so I did not spot that one either. Now that it is mentioned, however, it briefly conjured the mental image of a coffin on a rail.

So far I feel your suggestions (like adopting Inquisitors thresholds system) would be a more drastic change, yes. It would certainly be enough to stop me (personally) adopting a new system that used it because I feel it sucks the life out of the game a bit.

So the other changes are not drastic just because you like them? I realise that this is all about personal preferences, but that should not change anything about the scope of the changes...

The wounds system has been in a state of constant flux with each edition (I can't think of a single iteration where it hasn't changed) so at this stage thats kind of par for the course.

Where did the wounds system change between DH, RT, DW, BC and OW?

Or are you talking about the spiritual fantasy predecessors to FFG's range of 40k games?

I'm really not sure where you got that I liked the other changes more. I merely accept them as part of the flux of the game. To reiterate, the loss of TB is not a particularly drastic change, the implementation of a new system to accommodate such a change COULD be, and I feel the one you have suggested WOULD be. I am also open minded that this could be implemented without it being so.

I feel it sucks the life out of the game because the threshold-esq system from Inquisitor has the same feeling as white wolfs "bruised, injured, crippled etc etc" injury from the storyteller system, which lacks the varied results the splat charts enable. Back in the earlier days of the systems lineage this could be completely randomised on a table, meaning even a -1 wound could kill.

I am indeed referencing the predecessors as the lineage of the system, because that's exactly what they are. The DH, RT, DW, BC, OW progression is more like revisions (think 3.5) than a new system in its own right.

He's referring to the Technical Knock talent- a TP-only talent that allowed you to instantly unjam a weapon as a half-action. It required X amount of intelligence to acquire, iirc.

Ah! My bad.

I'm really not sure where you got that I liked the other changes more. I merely accept them as part of the flux of the game.

It just came across that way - the whole "I don't like how it worked in Inquisitor" as a reason for why this would be a "drastic change". So, thanks for clarifying your thoughts on the issue ->

I feel it sucks the life out of the game because the threshold-esq system from Inquisitor has the same feeling as white wolfs "bruised, injured, crippled etc etc" injury from the storyteller system, which lacks the varied results the splat charts enable. Back in the earlier days of the systems lineage this could be completely randomised on a table, meaning even a -1 wound could kill.

But that's not what I am argueing for.

The Critical Tables are completely independent from the way that Crit Damage is accumulated. Just because we change the way of how points in the Critical Injury table rack up (by introducing a buffer when jumping from one level to the next), this means nothing for the levels themselves. In other words, the result for "4" would still say the same, we're just modifying the way of getting there . I'm not argueing for a carbon copy of Inquisitor, but rather a merger of the two.

Although I personally believe that a more "open" injury system would actually be beneficial. As much as I loved the splat charts upon first reading them (they are funny, and at the time were a new thing for me), I've come to the opinion that they are rather restrictive and may not always accurately reflect what is actually happening. For example, in the DH2 Beta, I noticed a lot of people argueing over how "heads explode" just because this is what the table says, even when the character was only punched and he happened to have been injured already.

And I have no idea how it worked in White Wolf, but in Inquisitor a -1 wound surely wouldn't kill you. Unless, of course, you were already close to death.

I am indeed referencing the predecessors as the lineage of the system, because that's exactly what they are. The DH, RT, DW, BC, OW progression is more like revisions (think 3.5) than a new system in its own right.

Don't get me wrong, I've played WFRP as well, but to look towards that game when making any decision in regards to DH2 just seems a bit odd to me.

It's not a game of inquisitor without at least one three-way gunfight between different inquisitors.

The best thing is, this was actual dialogue from the players during the game (I was GM-ing). I think the most memorable for me was " NOW may I minister to my Gun-Servitor?" from the tech-priest.

How about incorporating dodge to soak?

In essence for the people who have issues with Dodge and Soak, would this be a interesting solution? :

When you successfully dodge an attack, instead on negating it, you instead get to use your TB to soak some of the damage caused, in effect your dodge here in this suggestion of mine represents you twisting, turning..presenting your armour or body in such a fashion that you negate some of the effectiveness of said attack.

Fail the dodge and you do not get to apply TB to soak, as you have been hit square by the attack.

To make this a complete system Dodge would be unlimited action per round, with a successive -10 cumulative per attempt in each round.

So first attack dodge =/- 0

Second attack dodge -10

third attack dodge -20

etc etc, meaning it is harder and harder to escape from so many attacks, which would be realistic no?

This is just something I have been mulling over after reading the many many threads on the different 40k boards about both dodge and toughness soak.

Of course some might feel the need to adjust weapon damage charts slightly to reflect Dodge no longer negating 100% of an incoming attack.

You could also incorporate a flat % chance based on Dodge ability to allow a bonus to soak and AP, for example :

Rank known : 5% chance to gain + 1 TB, +1 AP ( roll of 01-05 on successful Dodge test )

Rank Trained : 10% chance to gain +1 TB, + 1AP ( roll of 01-10 on successful Dodge test )

Rank Experienced : 15% chance to gain +2 TB, +2 AP ( roll of 01-15 on successful Dodge test )

Rank Veteran : 20% chance to gain +2 TB, + 2 AP ( roll of 01-20 on successful Dodge test )

This would allow some benefit to spending XP to enhance Dodge skill, and also would represent again some realism ( for the ones who want more realism ) the increasing ability to move better in combat and use armour more effectively.

Dude you are the last person who should be calling out spelling and grammar errors.

If it would be about what people "should" do, then you shouldnt talk at all...

Sick burn, bro.

You missed an apostrophe in "shouldn't". Contractions are denoted by apostrophes. I'm not sure why you ended that sentence with an ellipsis.

Your continued antagonism of Gaunt, while occasionally amusing, has worn thin. Keep it on topic please. Like this:

Hey, I love the way toughness bonus mitigates damage. Keep it the way it is!

Hey, I love the way toughness bonus mitigates damage. Keep it the way it is!

So do I! Well, love is probably too strong a word, but I like the way you can get the effect of 'heroic' characters shrugging off minor wounds, without resorting to giving characters more 'hit points' than a bull elephant. Even though you get basically the same result (badass characters can survive massive amounts of damage), you don't have the common-sense-offending stat of absurd blocks of hit points. And yet they can still be threatened with one solid hit- unlike in games where characters can gain hit points into the hundreds.

Just read through the whole thread, and I'm wondering how this idea sits with everyone:

Toughness bonus becomes a modifier on the wound effects charts. Damage, Armour & Armour Pen can then be rebalanced easier (as there is no variable unmitigated damage reduction as there is in the current TB). Perhaps a slight rejig of how much of a modifier Wounds/Critical Wounds give to the wound effects would be required, again for balancing. That leaves Ridiculous Toughness Man just as easy to hurt, but far less mindful of the pain. It leaves Tyrant Guard laughing in the face of a few lasguns hits, and dead to repeated volleys of them. And it leaves Low Toughness Man knocked for six if hit by a lasgun.

Other thoughts:

I wonder if moving to the current attack system has caused some of the problems? The hit location system is completely arbitrary - a 91 is as good a shot, hit location wise, as a 01. When I have read fluff of Space Marines taken down by 'lesser' weapons (such as lasguns), it's been hits to the weak armour around the neck, or joints that have taken them down. Or, in the case of Terminators, enough bloody shots from an autocannon or its ilk. This, in my mind, is a critical hit, and I have always felt happiest when a critical hit is determined by a good attack roll. Not saying that Righteous Fury should be gotten rid of, in fact, far from it - there should be chances for better damage both from skill AND just sheer luck. Quite how a critical hit system from WS/BS would work with the beta's rate of fire system, I don't know, but I think it's a missing cog.

Something Inquisitor had in it that I like the idea of is the concept of ablative armour. True, it's a complication to add in, but something that could have value against massed shots from 'lesser' weapons potentially?

Just read through the whole thread, and I'm wondering how this idea sits with everyone:

Toughness bonus becomes a modifier on the wound effects charts.

You mean like in Inquisitor, as a "buffer" between Crit levels?

When I have read fluff of Space Marines taken down by 'lesser' weapons (such as lasguns), it's been hits to the weak armour around the neck, or joints that have taken them down. Or, in the case of Terminators, enough bloody shots from an autocannon or its ilk. This, in my mind, is a critical hit, and I have always felt happiest when a critical hit is determined by a good attack roll. Not saying that Righteous Fury should be gotten rid of, in fact, far from it - there should be chances for better damage both from skill AND just sheer luck. Quite how a critical hit system from WS/BS would work with the beta's rate of fire system, I don't know, but I think it's a missing cog.

Depends on the fluff you read - since you know Inquisitor, you're probably aware of a lasgun's chance to punch through power armour. The chance to do so is somewhat equal to the tabletop game, and the Marine power armour fluff in Codex: Angels of Death.

Hell, it can theoretically even do so here in this game (1d10+3 vs 8-10 AP), it's just that TB skin armour still stops the flash-burn from the las blast and the superheated fragments of molten ceramite from actually harming the target.

But I still like the idea of critical hits (regardless of the target and their armour), and how it should be something derived from BS/WS. I think we just had a discussion somewhere about this very topic, and one suggestion was to replace Righteous Fury with bonus damage derived from the Degrees of Success of single shot attacks, similar to how for burst and full auto fire, DoS determine the number of bullets that hit. Lethal accuracy (single high damage hit) versus hail of bullets (multiple moderate damage hits), so to say.

Something Inquisitor had in it that I like the idea of is the concept of ablative armour. True, it's a complication to add in, but something that could have value against massed shots from 'lesser' weapons potentially?

I don't see how it's any more complicated than the "ablative +1" from Good Quality Armor - so we kind of already have something like this in the game. In fact, it's even easier, since you just scratch those armour points off permanently, or at least until you get it repaired.

It should be an exception just like in Inquisitor, but aside from that it would be a neat way to make heavier armour more protective without making it too protective, if you get my drift.

The only thing I'm not too fond of is how fast the ablation happens. One possible solution would be to lower total AP a bit, but to compensate make ablative armour points only ablate under specific circumstances (such as the attacker rolling a "10" on the damage die). Applied to all suits of armour (perhaps a flat 33% of AP being ablative?), this could even make for a very simple armour degradation system. Yes, it's additional bookkeeping, which one should always be wary about, but given how rarely it would occur and that each occurrence would be a simple "-1" modifier to total resilience, I really don't think it would be too much.

Just read through the whole thread, and I'm wondering how this idea sits with everyone:

Toughness bonus becomes a modifier on the wound effects charts.

You mean like in Inquisitor, as a "buffer" between Crit levels?

As in, assume RidiculousToughnessMan has TB 8. He is wounded, and must consult the wound chart. Assume he got hit with an impact weapon in the chest, and got a result of 11 (crunch in the solar plexus, 1 fatigue & 1 round dazed). His TB would then reduce that to a 3 (bruised but unharmed). I know this is an extreme example, and the nature of the descriptions on the wound effects table can make it seem particularly daft, but I'm just brainstorming.

Must admit that Righteous Fury didn't quite sit right with me in this iteration, much like confirmed crits never did in D&D. As much as more powerful weaponry (that roll more die) are statistically more likely to get a critical wound, they will do plenty of damage anyway, so it just exacerbates the difference between low and high damage weapons. Perhaps, with the proposed TB modifier to the wound effects chart, scoring a righteous fury could deny the TB modifier?

Ablative armour is an odd one - you don't want it to wear off too fast, or it makes ablative armour feel a little pathetic. On the other hand, you don't want a squad of men shooting at ceramite for fifteen rounds before they reduce it to a level they can get through (reliably).

As in, assume RidiculousToughnessMan has TB 8. He is wounded, and must consult the wound chart. Assume he got hit with an impact weapon in the chest, and got a result of 11 (crunch in the solar plexus, 1 fatigue & 1 round dazed). His TB would then reduce that to a 3 (bruised but unharmed). I know this is an extreme example, and the nature of the descriptions on the wound effects table can make it seem particularly daft, but I'm just brainstorming.

What would you do when TB is higher than the damage incurred, though? Isn't this kind of the same as just leaving it as it works now, minus Wounds?

Or do you mean that TB could only reduce damage down to a minimum of 1?

No. Essentially, it stops RidiculousToughnessMan from avoiding wounds completely.

Take this example:

Lasgun does 9 Damage. AB reduces this to 8 damage. RidiculousToughnessMan's TB of 8 reduces this to 0. No wounds received.

Lasgun shoots again, does 9 damage. AB reduces this to 8. RidiculousToughnessMan's TB of 8 reduces this to 0. No wounds received.

Lasgun shoots again, does 9 damage. AB reduces this to 8. RidiculousToughnessMan's TB of 8 reduces this to 0. No wounds received.

vs. my idea

Lasgun does 9 Damage. AB reduces this to 8 damage. RidiculousToughnessMan receives a wound. This is an 8 on the wound effects table, which is then reduced to a 0 by his TB; no debuff happens.

Lasgun shoots again, does 9 damage. AB reduces this to 8 damage. RidiculousToughnessMan receives a wound. This is an 8 on the wound effects table, plus 5 for his previous wound, so 13. Then, minus his TB, so it's a 5, no debuff.

Lasgun shoots again, does 9 damage. AB reduces this to 8 damage. RidiculousToughnessMan receives a wound. This is an 8 on the wound effects table, plus 10 for his previous wound, so 18. Minus his TB, this is a 10, definitely a debuffing wound effect.

Oh! You've been working from the now-defunct v1 Beta for DH2 - okay, now I see where you're coming from.

I'm still basing everything on the previous systems' injury mechanics; I can't quite put my finger on why, but I've never really grown fond of how the first Beta resolves injuries. I guess I'm perceiving it as unnecessarily clunky (changing bonuses depending on any previous hits, necessitating to record them), though I probably may have eventually gotten used to it.

Sorry, glad we could clear up this misunderstanding.

SpineyNorman that sounds like a very promising approach. But can you guys live with the pages & pages worth of flowery Wound Effects?

SpineyNorman that sounds like a very promising approach. But can you guys live with the pages & pages worth of flowery Wound Effects?

Definitely! To the point where I would add even more tables (separate tables for explosive/blast damage) and even more results (1 to 50 instead 1 to 30). And I'm dead serious here.