SInce when are NPCs "objects" ? Didn't read the RAW that way...

I mean...I wouldnt even call Xenos...objects...even if some of them deserved it...

The +30 modifier is for hitting static targets that aren't aware they're being shot at. In other words: surprised actors and static objects. Whether it's an Eldar or a Christmas tree makes no difference.

Ok...but surpised is not the same as standing still...right ?

This is an honest question...I never gave a +30 on shots which went against "standing" targets (like targets in cover) so far...was that wrong ? 'Cause "standing" for me would mean "no movement action made".

As I recall the DH1 rulebook isn't super clear on when you get a bonus for shooting at someone who isn't moving, or what modifier might be appropriate for when someone has no idea you're there or is not trying to take cover. What would be appropriate for an assassination attempt where someone is at a podium, in full view and not really moving?

Everyone keeps calling cps a troll, but all I see is legitimate points delivered with a bit of snark.

This is an honest question...I never gave a +30 on shots which went against "standing" targets (like targets in cover) so far...was that wrong ? 'Cause "standing" for me would mean "no movement action made".

If thatt really is an honest question, here's two takes on an answer:

The rules lawyer answer is:

Unaware Targets (DH01 p.199): Weapon Skill or Ballistic Skill Tests made to attack unaware targets (i.e. Surprised targets), are Easy (+30).

Nothing in the wording demands or suggests that it only applies to targets that can be aware. It is simply a blanket rule including every possible target that has no awareness that it is a target. Whether it's a post-it note or a surprised Eldar, makes no difference.

...

The Spirit of The Rules answer is:

DH1e RAW does an amazingly poor job of explaining itself with precision, but if you read between the lines it becomes obvious that whomever wrote them operated with two major categories of movement, each with a few types, as it relates to BS tests. The major categories are: "covering distance" & "staying put".

The "covering distance" category of movement isn't relevant to your question, so I'll skip it.

The "staying put" category, however, is exactly what this is about. Here we have the following types:

"Default": No impact on BS tests.

Stunned: confers a +20 BS test modifier to attackers.

Unaware: confers a +30 BS test modifier to attackers.

The defining characteristic of the three types is immediately obvious: the degree to which the target is capable of reacting to being shot at (and stabbed too, but that doesn't matter here).Or in other words: how static they are.

This is exactly why I've been using the word "static" (not to be confused with the word "standing", which means something entirely different): an Unaware target is static, as it relates to attackers. And hey.. That makes them no different from other static targets, such as Christmas trees, road signs or what have you.

...

So... No, you shouldn't give attackers any kind of modifier for shooting a guy, just because the guy happens to be standing upright. If he's not aware that he's about to be shot, however, you should give attackers a +30 modifier on their BS test - whether the guy is standing, squatting, or hung on a rack.

So even if he is unaware and running ?

This rules really need some clear wording in the new edition.

Or are there translations into other languages that have a better wording ?

Maybe they should just make it

- Dazed +10

- Stunned +20

- Unaware / Helpless +30

And unaware is only granted if the target is somehow not moving.

I think unaware should stay regardless of an enemy's movement. Unaware simply implies they are making no active effort to avoid attacks; something which it's assumed you're constantly doing in a combat situation. There's already talents which make you harder to hit if you're moving fast, I think that does the job fine.

So even if he is unaware and running ?

Yeah man, totally!

It's not like I explicitly specified the exact opposite in no uncertain terms.

... Oh wait, that's precisely what I did.

But then again, I don't like D&D at all, and I really don't like ultra-competent PCs. Neither as a player nor as a GM.

I will hold my hand up and say I have never played any version of D&D. However, I agree with and support the second statement. It's a matter of taste, but borderline superheroes isn't the point - unless you're going to throw things even scarier at them.

For Dark Heresy, anyway, that's the point. I agree with the comment about that Unnatural characteristics don't really belong; the whole thing that makes Inquisitors cool is that they are just people. Unmitigated hard-as-nails badasses with no detectable moral compass whatsoever, perhaps, but everything they can do falls within 'human norms'.

You don't ignore bolter wounds. You don't fling entire armies around with psychic power. Scary things are scary.

So, if we are to judge by this thread, it would appear that the answer to your question, GauntZero, is that you and MILLANDSON seem to be the only ones who prefer the DH2b presentation of NPCs over the DH1 versions...

No. Just that a bunch of us who really liked the original Beta wandered off in disappointment when it was cancelled in favour of an OW-like system. I said I'd give the new Beta a fair chance so I just popped back in to see if it was out yet, but it's not.

And to the two posters who were arguing based on differences to the table-top game, then assuming being like the table-top game is a criteria for quality as you presume (which is a discussion in itself), you're messing up your comparison. Rounds in DH are not equivalent to rounds in table-top. Models in table-top don't alternate between different firing modes, pause to aim, etc. as discrete actions - it's simplified. Your guardsman who has a 50% chance to hit in table top has probably fired off a couple of shots. Which actually puts them equivalent to a 30% chance to hit per shot in DH. If you think one turn in table-top equals the same number of seconds as a round in DH, then that's easily shown not to be the case.

Anyway, just having a morbid read through the threads to see if anything has changed for the better since the original beta was cancelled, and seems not to be. Didn't really expect it to be, either.

I think this forum is ready for a new update for goodness sake. We have thoroughly discussed to death everything that we can especially since we have no idea what the new update will have in it.

I think this forum is ready for a new update for goodness sake.

I'm making a generous assumption that FFG isn't, yet

No, nothing new yet.

They take their time to ruin the game

Would making tests at skill times 2 when there are no complications and you are in a controlled environment make you happy?
I get your point but on the other hand we need the big things to be strong and hard to kill. If a rework of damage was still on the cards it could be done but I think you're going to be disappointed.

Your guardsman who has a 50% chance to hit in table top has probably fired off a couple of shots. Which actually puts them equivalent to a 30% chance to hit per shot in DH.

I want to point out that, statistically, a 50% chance to hit in TT (i.e. 4+) is exactly the same as a 50% chance to hit in DH, regardless of number of hits.

Your guardsman who has a 50% chance to hit in table top has probably fired off a couple of shots. Which actually puts them equivalent to a 30% chance to hit per shot in DH.

I want to point out that, statistically, a 50% chance to hit in TT (i.e. 4+) is exactly the same as a 50% chance to hit in DH, regardless of number of hits.

No it isn't. Either you are spectacularly bad at maths or you've not understood what I'm saying. I suspect the latter.

A turn in WH40k represents a different amount of actual time than a turn in Dark Heresy (easily demonstrated with movement differences, actions and other things). Thus a IG soldier standing an taking a shot in WH40k with their lasgun is an abstraction that smooths away any questions of SA fire, half-actions, full-actions, etc. It's a TT game - it's built for abstraction. You can't have it saying: "this guardsman is going to fire a short burst, this one is going to reload, etc..." Turns are longer representations of time in WH40K and will represent all of the shots a model makes in that longer period of time.

Thus a 50% of hitting in WH40K is not analoguous to a 50% chance of hitting in DH. Anyone trying to directly compare the numbers is making a horrible mistake.

Say our guardsman has a 50% of hitting with their single roll in WH40K. That same guardsman in DH might fire off two shots at an enemy in the more detailed RPG rules system. So in DH, say the guardsman has 30% chance of hitting (typical, before bonuses), the chance of hitting is actually (0.7*0.7 = 0.49) 49%.

Thus a BS of 30% in DH for a guardsman, with its more granular representation of time, is equivalent to BS of 3 in WH40k with it's 50% chance of hitting in the more abstract representation of time. Do you see?

A turn in WH40k represents a different amount of actual time than a turn in Dark Heresy

Not that different amount of time though. One turn in the TT system represents ~10 seconds.

A turn in WH40k represents a different amount of actual time than a turn in Dark Heresy

Not that different amount of time though. One turn in the TT system represents ~10 seconds.

An entire army acting at once in 10 second intervals? are you winding us up sir?

A turn in WH40k represents a different amount of actual time than a turn in Dark Heresy

Not that different amount of time though. One turn in the TT system represents ~10 seconds.

An entire army acting at once in 10 second intervals? are you winding us up sir?

Nope. It was in one of the old White Dwarves (official Games Workshop game magazine).

A turn in WH40k represents a different amount of actual time than a turn in Dark Heresy

Not that different amount of time though. One turn in the TT system represents ~10 seconds.

Well in that case it's around double the length of a 6 second DH turn, is it not? In which case the 50% hit rate on table top would translate rather nicely to the 30% chance per shot (thus 49% chance for two shots) in DH.

Anyway, tis a silly discussion predicated entirely on the assumption that conformity to the table top game is a determinant of quality in the RPG version. An assumption that is not proven, needless to say.

A turn in WH40k represents a different amount of actual time than a turn in Dark Heresy

Not that different amount of time though. One turn in the TT system represents ~10 seconds.

An entire army acting at once in 10 second intervals? are you winding us up sir?

Turns are abstractions.

Seriously, I hate when people don't get that.

A turn in WH40k represents a different amount of actual time than a turn in Dark Heresy

Not that different amount of time though. One turn in the TT system represents ~10 seconds.

An entire army acting at once in 10 second intervals? are you winding us up sir?

Turns are abstractions.

Seriously, I hate when people don't get that.

I guess my sarcasm was lost on the pair of you then.