Looking at the pre-beta times, I mostly saw quite bland characteristics in the NPC stats, especially looking at human NPCs (an effect which mostly occurs at WS & BS).

They had a wider range in the beta which I really liked, having also values up to the 60ies sometimes, which created more colorful NPCs in my oppinion.

Looking at e.g. two OW stats before (from the newest Enemies of the Imperium):

> Severan Dominate Soldier: having WS & BS around 35

--> Really ? Guys - this guy is a SOLDIER; an AVERAGE JOE should have such stats...not a soldier.

> Ork Nob having WS 45

--> this guy lives for waaagh and survived long enbough there to become a nob...45 seems too...cute...for that.

It is rare to find WS/BS values that are not between 25 and 45 - thats totally boring.

A range between 20 and 80 is much more appealing imo.

And please - stop that "Unnatural characteristic" nonsense and the pseudo "D% has to stop at a value of 100" attitude.

If a NPC is Unnatural somewhere - just give it higher stats there.

The beta did that right and this should be something which should be kept.

A Non-Average Joe starts with 20 + 2d10, which gives a spread of 22-40, so 35 is actually quite high for a completely non-special soldier.

I agree, the numbers of the game should be based on how exciting and varied they feel and not based on some underlying mathematical foundation. Another great post, GZ.

Has anyone checked the numbers?

We've only played 2 one-off's, both with fresh PCs, so.. Not a huge difference there. But if someone's done the hard work I'd love to hear how high rank PCs compare to their DH1e equivalent.

35 is a good stat for someone who uses that trait professionally. Civilians are usually represented as having WS/BS of around 20. (And keep in mind that starting PCs aren't 'Average Joes'- they were recruited by the =][= because they had some kind of useful skill.)

As for Unnatural traits, I like the extra variety and flexibility- if I want a melee specialist to be able to threaten armoured PCs, I can either give him crazy-high Strength if that's appropriate, or give him Unnatural Strength if I don't want him to be able to perform truly superhuman feats.

In earlier books (I don't recall seeing it in that one), it stated that Humanity's average was 28-33; 35 for a professional soldier (or well, professional rebel soldier using your example) make sense to me.

I confess, I have always found the characteristics scale for 40KRP to be more than a little odd. I mean, obviously all they did was take the tabletop statline and multiply it by 10... which honestly doesn't make much sense when a standard Guardsman on the tabletop with a BS 3 hits 50% of the time as opposed to an RP guardsman with BS 35 who hits 35% of the time (modifiers notwithstanding).

It does leave me a bit torn between wanting compatibility between game lines on the one hand and wanting a more sensible scale where pile-on-the-modifiers is not the name-of-the-game on the other.

Stat values is the least interesting way of diversifying characters. Most people wouldn't buy separate bestiary books just to learn that Eldars have X Agility and Orks get Y Strength. What really makes enemies interesting and diverse are Talents, Traits, special rules and combinations thereof. For this reason, the only commendable thing about beta characters was that almost everyone got a special rule of some sort. That's cool.

Having a wide range of stats creates a sense of disconnect. Think D&D, where an average value for a common guy is 9-10 +/- racial modifier, 18 is an awesome value for a starting heroic character, but endgame characters are expected to have values around 30 in their primary stats. This can kinda-sorta be explained by the fact that endgame D&D characters are practically demigods by any reasonable standard, but mostly it just flies because D&D is a tactical murder simulator that doesn't (by design, at least) care about much else than populating locations with level-appropriate critters so the team can stab them in the face. From this perspective, this works perfectly well, but it really sucks for creating an illusion of a coherent, living world between those combat locations.

40k, as a setting, doesn't assume characters effectively becoming demigods. Human you were, and human you shall remain. You can become a very badass human indeed, but you'll never be stronger than a Daemon Prince, or faster than an Eldar, because that's how cosmos is arranged and you'll have to rely on your experience, equipment, and sheer badness to overcome such enemies. What you don't do is train yourself until you can indeed outrun that Eldar or wrestle that Daemon Prince.

I've seen things like that the last time Warhammer roleplay experimented with a high range of stats - in WFRP 2e. I had a dwarf in the group I ran who was stronger than giants. Those several meters tall, grab-a-tree-trunk-and-use-it-as-club giants. He was also stronger than dragons, and almost as strong as a darn Bloodthirster. It wasn't very fun, and it didn't make any sense whatsoever from the perspective of the in-game world.

I've seen the symptoms of the same problem in the beta, where it's possible to become more agile than an Eldar, and only a few points less tough than a Herald of Nurgle (pretty much the toughest thing I've seen in beta's bestiary). That shouldn't happen. And if anyone mentions permanent characteristic reduction as a counterpoint, I will murder him with my mind and send the remains straight into late eighties where such horrid designs could still fly. Seriously, FFG staff, we're in the second decade of the 21st century, and "game engine" no longer means "a compilation of ways the GM can punish players".

...and I think I'll end that rant right here. Bottom line is, it doesn't matter what exact values stats have, as long as they make sense in comparison between various critters, and 1e 40k nails it quite well.

I confess, I have always found the characteristics scale for 40KRP to be more than a little odd. I mean, obviously all they did was take the tabletop statline and multiply it by 10... which honestly doesn't make much sense when a standard Guardsman on the tabletop with a BS 3 hits 50% of the time as opposed to an RP guardsman with BS 35 who hits 35% of the time (modifiers notwithstanding).

It does leave me a bit torn between wanting compatibility between game lines on the one hand and wanting a more sensible scale where pile-on-the-modifiers is not the name-of-the-game on the other.

See, this is just it; modifiers notwithstanding .

You can't do that. It's ridiculous. A lot of people seem to simply not be using modifiers properly, whether it's combat modifiers or difficulty ratings or just plain Talents. It's an integral part of the system and unless people use it, of course nothing makes sense!

The example given by GauntZero illustrates this disconnect. The players are regularly stated to be special cases , chosen by Fate (it's the entire logic behind Fate Points to begin with!). While unremarkable in the greatness of the Imperium, still, they are at least a small cut above the population in sheer ability.

There's a reason you were chosen by the Inquisition. There's a reason you're playing that squad in Only War, and there's a reason the command crew of that Rogue Trader's ship is the **** command crew!

And even so, as regular human beings from humble origins and early in your career, you start with a meagre 20+2d10 , with slight adjustments. This is anything from 22 to 40, with a realistic 35-45 adjusted with modifiers.

And then you have this nit, this NOBODY from the Severan Dominate; very much an AVERAGE JOE SCHMUCK BUFFOON, soldier or no soldier, and he just falls from the almighty GM-sky with a flat 35 WS/BS.

35 WS/BS is absolutely reasonable for a regular soldier within the System. Even a Half-Aim Action turns that up a whoopin' +10! Standard Attack, +10! Shoot from Higher Ground for another +10, or put up ambushes! Nevermind the fact that in any likely scenario, the chosen ones will be outnumbered at least 2-1.

I'm not aiming this specifically at you, LuciusT, so please don't take offense, it's aimed more at the topic overall.

Yes, the system is modifiers-heavy, but this makes it highly modular, as long as people use it properly, instead of the "I standard attack"-fest some people turn it into. The modifiers exists for a reason and makes perfect sense, allowing either side to stack the odds in their favour.

In terms of combat and skill usage, I much prefer a modular approach to something that eschews modifiers resulting in greatly reduced tactical possibilities for everyone, GM and players both.

Stat values is the least interesting way of diversifying characters. Most people wouldn't buy separate bestiary books just to learn that Eldars have X Agility and Orks get Y Strength. What really makes enemies interesting and diverse are Talents, Traits, special rules and combinations thereof. For this reason, the only commendable thing about beta characters was that almost everyone got a special rule of some sort. That's cool.

Having a wide range of stats creates a sense of disconnect. Think D&D, where an average value for a common guy is 9-10 +/- racial modifier, 18 is an awesome value for a starting heroic character, but endgame characters are expected to have values around 30 in their primary stats. This can kinda-sorta be explained by the fact that endgame D&D characters are practically demigods by any reasonable standard, but mostly it just flies because D&D is a tactical murder simulator that doesn't (by design, at least) care about much else than populating locations with level-appropriate critters so the team can stab them in the face. From this perspective, this works perfectly well, but it really sucks for creating an illusion of a coherent, living world between those combat locations.

40k, as a setting, doesn't assume characters effectively becoming demigods. Human you were, and human you shall remain. You can become a very badass human indeed, but you'll never be stronger than a Daemon Prince, or faster than an Eldar, because that's how cosmos is arranged and you'll have to rely on your experience, equipment, and sheer badness to overcome such enemies. What you don't do is train yourself until you can indeed outrun that Eldar or wrestle that Daemon Prince.

I've seen things like that the last time Warhammer roleplay experimented with a high range of stats - in WFRP 2e. I had a dwarf in the group I ran who was stronger than giants. Those several meters tall, grab-a-tree-trunk-and-use-it-as-club giants. He was also stronger than dragons, and almost as strong as a darn Bloodthirster. It wasn't very fun, and it didn't make any sense whatsoever from the perspective of the in-game world.

I've seen the symptoms of the same problem in the beta, where it's possible to become more agile than an Eldar, and only a few points less tough than a Herald of Nurgle (pretty much the toughest thing I've seen in beta's bestiary). That shouldn't happen. And if anyone mentions permanent characteristic reduction as a counterpoint, I will murder him with my mind and send the remains straight into late eighties where such horrid designs could still fly. Seriously, FFG staff, we're in the second decade of the 21st century, and "game engine" no longer means "a compilation of ways the GM can punish players".

...and I think I'll end that rant right here. Bottom line is, it doesn't matter what exact values stats have, as long as they make sense in comparison between various critters, and 1e 40k nails it quite well.

This brightened my night considerably. Dammit man, I'm trying to keep this place clean and now there's milk everywhere.

A Non-Average Joe starts with 20 + 2d10, which gives a spread of 22-40, so 35 is actually quite high for a completely non-special soldier.

DH1 had 20 + modifiers from homeworld, divination and the indirect effect of one re-roll.

RT had 25 + origin path bonus + said re-roll.

Each +2d10 which is 11 on average.

So the average DH1 characteristic is about 33, the average RT characteristics (which is more realistic for acolytes in my oppinion and also the direction of the beta) is about 37.

So a Soldier NPC with BS 35 is what ? 2% better at shooting than my average adept PC ?

Thats ridiculous.

The players special factor is their fate points, not their high stat compared to npcs in my oppinion.

And a oldier sergeant, who got his position through experience and glory, has how much ? 37% ?

So, he hits 2% more often than the average soldier of his squad - really a menace.

Its statistically meaningless.

Thats what i do not like.

A soldier having between 35 and 45, his sergeant around 50 would be more realistic and more diversified.

I agree, the numbers of the game should be based on how exciting and varied they feel and not based on some underlying mathematical foundation. Another great post, GZ.

Heresy *bam*

See, this is just it; modifiers notwithstanding .

You can't do that. It's ridiculous. A lot of people seem to simply not be using modifiers properly, whether it's combat modifiers or difficulty ratings or just plain Talents. It's an integral part of the system and unless people use it, of course nothing makes sense!

Yup, this.

A common Guardsman in the TableTop game and 40K fiction hits about 50% of the time, and so does a DH1 Guardsman with 35 BS and standard modifiers .

And Morgangias is absolutely right about the 40Kverse not allowing humans to have superhuman Strength/Agility/etc unless it comes from a specific artificial source (like cybernetics or combat drugs).

I play WH40KRP games to roleplay in the 40K universe , not to play a comic book superhero game with some 40K trappings tacked on...

The problem comes when you compare different NPCs which should have a feelable difference, but have not.

A soldier having between 35 and 45, his sergeant around 50 would be more realistic and more diversified.

No, it wouldn't be more realistic.

Realistically, most people hit a glass ceiling of how good they can get in any field of expertise. Y'know, like how most people with education will never be nobel price contenders despite having same potential access to academic faculties as those who eventually make major scientific breakthroughs and go down in history.

Likewise, as soldiers gain battlefield experience, they don't gradually change towards becoming the lovechild of Rambo and Hawkeye. They don't spend every waking moment training to shoot better - they like to slack off whenever they can, or pursue some hobbies if that's realistically possible, or are mercilessly driven to perform all those camp chores that don't do anything to improve their combat capabilities - you know, drills, digging trenches, patrol duty, guard duty, whatever. This is doubly true in Imperial Guard, where the combat doctrine precludes personal prowess from mattering on the battlefield - at the end of the day, what most guardsmen do in battle is dig in, form a firing line, and start emptying the charge packs in the general direction of the enemy, and with enough guardsmen doing that, it doesn't really matter that half of them just miss. As such, your usual guardsman will have his combat characteristics a cut above untrained, undrilled human, but that's it.

Likewise, sergeants and other officers aren't selected based on who kicks the most butt one on one - if that were the case, First Blood would be a very different movie, as Colonel Trautman would just enter the forest alone and karate-chop Rambo into submission. Nope, not happening. What actually happens is, such people get nominated based on their mind for battlefield tactics, good service record, and good rapport with fellow soldiers and higher ranks alike. As such, an average sergeant will be better in fields such as Willpower (nobody listens to the guy cowering in the corner), Fellowship, Command Skill and relevant Talents. Any increases in direct combat stuff compared to rank and file Guardsmen should be rather symbolic.

RE: Comparison to BS 35 Adept. First of all, if you roll BS 35 on an Adept (or any other career, for that matter), it means your character is either naturally gifted, or trains shooting in his spare time, or comes from Gunmetal City - either way, he's not exactly what we consider a civilian.

Second, and more importantly, what really differentiates that Adept from that NPC Guardsman are Skills and Talents. A Guardsman NPC in OW is trained in the Dodge Skill, and has Rapid Reload, Nerves of Steel, and Takedown Talents. None of which a Rank 1 Adept can purchase, elite advancements notwithstanding, and all of which give the Guardsman considerable advantages in a fight. He's harder to hit, harder to pin, can sustain fire without delays, and can stun you in close combat. The Adept? Well, he can shoot about as well, and that's it.

RE: Acolytes are special - they are, and in more ways than just by having Fate Points. By far their greatest advantage is the almost limitless potential to advance their abilities. They don't plateau like ordinary men, and it's up to you, the player, to decide where their (small "t") talents really show. Most Guardsmen remain above average shots all their lives, your Guardsman can totally train until he can shoot the mole on heretic's face from a hundred meters.

Mind, the same applies to NPCs, but it works both ways. You can totally have regimental snipers who shoot like God-Emperor himself guides their aim, or noble duelists who will give the Assassin a run for the money, or evil geniuses whose plans can be tough for the Adept to crack. But these aren't ordinary cases, just like the PCs aren't ordinary. They are what later systems name Elite or Master adversaries, and should be treated accordingly. This way, everything in the world falls into proper places, and it's easier for the Acolytes to feel special.

But having an regular test with a 35% success chance is ridiculous, also for players.

Looking at the books, they set a lot of tests on +10, +20 or even +30 out of this odd low values for characteristics.

The whole scaling is wrong. A regular test for e.g. strength should have a higher chance than 35% to succeed.

There shouldnt be a modifier needed to have a fair chance.

Same with standard shots in combat - why do they need a +10 ? Because the characteristic scaling is bad.

Make the modifier 0 and the stat +10 instead.

You guys are wasting a lot of energy arguing with someone with a poorly thought out and ungrounded opinion. I'm not sure if I should admire the effort to explain it to him or pity all of you.

Modifiers are the name of the game to underline the Lovecraftian theme of cosmic horror. By themselves, humans aren't a very impressive race compared to all the scary stuff the galaxy gets to throw at them. With the sole exception of Tau, every iconic xeno race from the TT comes with significant physical advantages compared to humanity, advantages which humans manage to overcome thanks to tools, wits, and fanatical devotion which allows them to sacrifice millions in the name of ultimate victory.

It is perfectly consistent with itself. What you call "regular test" is actually meant to be Challenging, which sounds pretty self-explanatory. It's not challenging for a Tech-Priest to perform routine maintenance, or for a guardsman to shoot a stationary target. Challenging means, things can go wrong, and it will hurt if they do.

Fortunately, difficulty alone isn't the be-all, end-all in this game. That 35 BS Guardsman, when taking time to aim and firing a single shot, has 55% chance of hitting. Add another 10% if he shoots from 50m or closer for a nifty 65%. Bear in mind, that's 65% chance of success in a combat situation, against a moving target that definitely doesn't want to be shot. I'd say that's pretty good.

Incidentally, this is also how tactical depth of the old game shows through. It's not about your stats - well, they certainly help, but aren't everything - it's about how you can turn the battlefield conditions to your advantage.

And the same thing easily applies out of combat, too. A techpriest isn't going to perform maintenance on a cogitator with his bare hands, he's going to have his combi-tool (+20) in hand, and his interface port connected up (+20). 75 percent chance of success on a 'Challenging' test sounds pretty reasonable, I think (assuming 35 Int. And that's without anything but the most basic of Tech-Use training, too). And really, any techpriest worth his salt is probably working with the assistance of any number of lowly tech-adepts or servitors, so you can easily add on assistance modifiers too.

DH is all about modifiers, and I love it for that. It does a great job of representing relatively mundane humans doing extraordinary things with the aid of equipment, skills, assistance and careful engineering of situations.

Modifiers for modifiers sake is awful.

A modifier for using a tool is fine.

A standard modifier for standard shots or tests is just needless.

GZ, maybe you'd be more happy playing a game like D&D where characters have pretty consistent modifiers to their rolls. Your attacks are 1d20+X where X changes every other level and you at most have one or two +/-2 modifiers.

It is not about the game being like D&D.

I do not like D&D very much, as the rising hit points create odd tough characters.

I do not think that an increase in characteristics as introduced in the beta has any effect like D&D increases.

Modifiers for modifiers sake is awful.

A modifier for using a tool is fine.

A standard modifier for standard shots or tests is just needless.

My standard reply to the whiff factor is this:

• You don't roll unless failure is a real option.
• The standard modifier when failure is a real option, is +60 (giving the average human a 90% chance to succeed, as the human characteristic baseline is 30).
• Only circumstances like being surrounded, in the open, under fire and having crap gear combined gives you a +/-0 modifier.

To a lot of people this way of resolving tests feels wrong, which is perfectly fine, but might suggest a different system would serve you better. This system is designed to make human beings completely inadequate, unless those human beings get clever. The universe isn't a friendly one, or one where individuals are supposed to be able to face down most challenges and live to tell about it. It's a universe of martyrs, and of scraping by by the skin of your teeth. The system reflects that.

I confess, I have always found the characteristics scale for 40KRP to be more than a little odd. I mean, obviously all they did was take the tabletop statline and multiply it by 10... which honestly doesn't make much sense when a standard Guardsman on the tabletop with a BS 3 hits 50% of the time as opposed to an RP guardsman with BS 35 who hits 35% of the time (modifiers notwithstanding).

It does leave me a bit torn between wanting compatibility between game lines on the one hand and wanting a more sensible scale where pile-on-the-modifiers is not the name-of-the-game on the other.

See, this is just it; modifiers notwithstanding .

You can't do that. It's ridiculous. A lot of people seem to simply not be using modifiers properly, whether it's combat modifiers or difficulty ratings or just plain Talents. It's an integral part of the system and unless people use it, of course nothing makes sense!

The example given by GauntZero illustrates this disconnect. The players are regularly stated to be special cases , chosen by Fate (it's the entire logic behind Fate Points to begin with!). While unremarkable in the greatness of the Imperium, still, they are at least a small cut above the population in sheer ability.

There's a reason you were chosen by the Inquisition. There's a reason you're playing that squad in Only War, and there's a reason the command crew of that Rogue Trader's ship is the **** command crew!

And even so, as regular human beings from humble origins and early in your career, you start with a meagre 20+2d10 , with slight adjustments. This is anything from 22 to 40, with a realistic 35-45 adjusted with modifiers.

And then you have this nit, this NOBODY from the Severan Dominate; very much an AVERAGE JOE SCHMUCK BUFFOON, soldier or no soldier, and he just falls from the almighty GM-sky with a flat 35 WS/BS.

35 WS/BS is absolutely reasonable for a regular soldier within the System. Even a Half-Aim Action turns that up a whoopin' +10! Standard Attack, +10! Shoot from Higher Ground for another +10, or put up ambushes! Nevermind the fact that in any likely scenario, the chosen ones will be outnumbered at least 2-1.

I'm not aiming this specifically at you, LuciusT, so please don't take offense, it's aimed more at the topic overall.

Yes, the system is modifiers-heavy, but this makes it highly modular, as long as people use it properly, instead of the "I standard attack"-fest some people turn it into. The modifiers exists for a reason and makes perfect sense, allowing either side to stack the odds in their favour.

In terms of combat and skill usage, I much prefer a modular approach to something that eschews modifiers resulting in greatly reduced tactical possibilities for everyone, GM and players both.

Stat values is the least interesting way of diversifying characters. Most people wouldn't buy separate bestiary books just to learn that Eldars have X Agility and Orks get Y Strength. What really makes enemies interesting and diverse are Talents, Traits, special rules and combinations thereof. For this reason, the only commendable thing about beta characters was that almost everyone got a special rule of some sort. That's cool.

Having a wide range of stats creates a sense of disconnect. Think D&D, where an average value for a common guy is 9-10 +/- racial modifier, 18 is an awesome value for a starting heroic character, but endgame characters are expected to have values around 30 in their primary stats. This can kinda-sorta be explained by the fact that endgame D&D characters are practically demigods by any reasonable standard, but mostly it just flies because D&D is a tactical murder simulator that doesn't (by design, at least) care about much else than populating locations with level-appropriate critters so the team can stab them in the face. From this perspective, this works perfectly well, but it really sucks for creating an illusion of a coherent, living world between those combat locations.

40k, as a setting, doesn't assume characters effectively becoming demigods. Human you were, and human you shall remain. You can become a very badass human indeed, but you'll never be stronger than a Daemon Prince, or faster than an Eldar, because that's how cosmos is arranged and you'll have to rely on your experience, equipment, and sheer badness to overcome such enemies. What you don't do is train yourself until you can indeed outrun that Eldar or wrestle that Daemon Prince.

I've seen things like that the last time Warhammer roleplay experimented with a high range of stats - in WFRP 2e. I had a dwarf in the group I ran who was stronger than giants. Those several meters tall, grab-a-tree-trunk-and-use-it-as-club giants. He was also stronger than dragons, and almost as strong as a darn Bloodthirster. It wasn't very fun, and it didn't make any sense whatsoever from the perspective of the in-game world.

I've seen the symptoms of the same problem in the beta, where it's possible to become more agile than an Eldar, and only a few points less tough than a Herald of Nurgle (pretty much the toughest thing I've seen in beta's bestiary). That shouldn't happen. And if anyone mentions permanent characteristic reduction as a counterpoint, I will murder him with my mind and send the remains straight into late eighties where such horrid designs could still fly. Seriously, FFG staff, we're in the second decade of the 21st century, and "game engine" no longer means "a compilation of ways the GM can punish players".

...and I think I'll end that rant right here. Bottom line is, it doesn't matter what exact values stats have, as long as they make sense in comparison between various critters, and 1e 40k nails it quite well.

This brightened my night considerably. Dammit man, I'm trying to keep this place clean and now there's milk everywhere.

@ Fgdsfg

I can't agree more, really.

It is all about the modifiers, and I really like that. In addition it is also about using your talents, cover, surpassing fire and other combat actions. So instead of just standing there gunning each other down the combatants need to coordinate with their actions like taking cover, surprising fire and tactical advancements. The great thing of the modifier system is, that it's easy with its +/- mods but combined with the actions it can get pretty deep.

Many ppl just don't get it since the first edition of DH.... but whatever.

The same with the differences in stats of npcs. Humans are quite similar in their characteristics. Most humans would pretty much have the same characteristics with little statistical difference. They differ much more in regards of talents, skills and culture (fluff). With this system of characteristics, talents, skills, traits, equipment and special rules you have a very flexible tool to illustrate the wide range of creatures and their power range of the 40k universe. I am very satisfied with this system.

Regarding the power limits of humans: Yes humans should be weak humans with their natural limits. This was the interesting part, it was like Call of Cthulhu in the 40k universe. An investigative game where humanity is marginalized by cosmic horrors of all kinds.

Of course a Throne Agent kind of game can have its place in 40krpgs were you play transhumans/posthumans with godlike powers, but this is not what DH should be about. You can do it in Deathwatch or in an Ascention like game where Astartes, Officio Assassinorum, primaris psykers and mechanicus walking magos tanks meet.

A standard modifier for standard shots...is just needless.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "needless", but I debated this after the release of Black Crusade. The term "Standard" translated (to me) as Ordinary, which gave a +10 modifier, and suddenly getting a +10 modifier just for taking an action (swinging a sword, we'll say) seemed to be removing the significance of Ordinary from the Difficulty modifier choices. It didn't sit well with me, but I've since made my peace with it.

However, it did seem more emphasis was placed on this "Standard" bonus within combat, as there was no mention (that I recall) of all Tests receiving a "Standard" action bonus.

Of course a Throne Agent kind of game can have its place in 40krpgs were you play transhumans/posthumans with godlike powers, but this is not what DH should be about. You can do it in Deathwatch or in an Ascention like game where Astartes, Officio Assassinorum, primaris psykers and mechanicus walking magos tanks meet.

Judicious and unwarranted use of Unnatural Characteristic Trait in Ascension is one of the reasons I despise that book so much. Death cult Assassin being magnitudes quicker than an Eldar? Inquisitors and Psykers developing Unnatural Wilpower? What the Warp? I get why Vindicare gets his, because Officio operatives are murderbots assembled with forbidden tech, and I get that Magos may get his to represent the even more extensive physical implantation, but as the name suggests, humans are generally supposed to have natural characteristics.