The scaling in OW/DH1 doesn't seem much of a problem to me. Consider this: You and I are on some world where we are "Invited" to join the Imperial guard. I prove to be way too weak and frail and am immediately executed! That leaves you boy scout! Now you tell me that you've been shooting since you were a kid and you can hit the target every time! Let's assume you're not bogus and really can put rounds on target 95% of the time. (The twentieth round being a jam or whatever.) You fire on a 100 yard range with a hunting rifle that has an effective range of 150 yds. Let's work that out shall we? 100 yds (Meters is close to the same) is outside short range so no bonus. Target is a man silouette so no bonus for size. Target is stationary so +30 for that. You undoubtedly took your sweet time aiming (Since nobody was shooting back!) so +20. Finally, You fired your rifle single shot so +10 for that! Hmmm...Mental math...*bell rings* That's a +60 modifier! Let's backtrack that from our 95% success rate. Hmmm...*smoke pours out of ears*, That's a 35 base Ballistic skill! Wait! Isn't that like saying your basic Infantry trooper on a live fire range can hit every time? Of course it is! It starts to get a bit messier when people downrange are really trying to blow YOUR head off though! What's wrong with this scale? As others have pointed out; It's the modifiers that do the scaling for you not your base stat! This debate about scaling is more about Style than substance IMHO. What's wrong with the system as written? It's functional and has worked well through five different games without too much trouble while only having been "tweaked" relatively little! Just sayin...

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.

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 DH2 b presentation of NPCs over the DH1 versions...

A Standard Attack is an Action. It has nothing at all to do with the Difficulty of said Action. Never did.

Yes, I get this. Standard Attack, +10, got it. So why, then, is a Medicae Test not a "Standard" Medicae Test? Standard is +10, Ordinary is +10, but the Medicae Test isn't Standard, it's a small (s)tandard Challenging Test unless I specify Standard? Why say "Standard? Why not just say all no-frills to-hit Tests, heck, any no-frills Test is Ordinary? The word big (S)tandard was shoehorned in, in my opinion, to buff WS and BS Tests, nothing more, nothing less, and not a single person has spoken clearly and with any authority to tell me why suddenly "Standard" equals +10 or why "Standard" isn't just Ordinary by default. Silly. But like I said, I made my peace with it.

A Standard Attack is an Action. It has nothing at all to do with the Difficulty of said Action. Never did.

Yes, I get this. Standard Attack, +10, got it. So why, then, is a Medicae Test not a "Standard" Medicae Test? Standard is +10, Ordinary is +10, but the Medicae Test isn't Standard, it's a small (s)tandard Challenging Test unless I specify Standard? Why say "Standard? Why not just say all no-frills to-hit Tests, heck, any no-frills Test is Ordinary? The word big (S)tandard was shoehorned in, in my opinion, to buff WS and BS Tests, nothing more, nothing less, and not a single person has spoken clearly and with any authority to tell me why suddenly "Standard" equals +10 or why "Standard" isn't just Ordinary by default. Silly. But like I said, I made my peace with it.

It's called a Standard Attack because that's what it is. It's just a simple swing by your weapon; it was called a Standard Attack long before it got it's +10 to WS/BS, and it's called that way because.. well.. it's a standard attack. A shot of your weapon, bam, or a swing with your sword, swosh. Not a fancy Lightning Attack, not a Called Shot, nor a Knock-Down or Grapple. Just a Standard Attack.

You can't call it just "Attack", because all of the Attack Actions are Attacks.

You can't call it a Ordinary Attack, because Ordinary is a Test Difficulty.

You can't call it a Trivial, Elementary, Simple, Easy or Routine Attack either, because those are also Test Difficulties.

Really, it's just named Standard Attack for rules clarity and as a representation for what that Attack Action is , regardless of difficulty.

Your example with Medicae doesn't even make sense; like I said; a Standard Attack is an Action. It has nothing at all to do with the Difficulty of said Action , and it never did. A Standard Attack confers +10 to the Attack Roll, but the Difficulty may still be Hellish (-60).

The scaling in OW/DH1 doesn't seem much of a problem to me. Consider this: You and I are on some world where we are "Invited" to join the Imperial guard. I prove to be way too weak and frail and am immediately executed! That leaves you boy scout! Now you tell me that you've been shooting since you were a kid and you can hit the target every time! Let's assume you're not bogus and really can put rounds on target 95% of the time. (The twentieth round being a jam or whatever.) You fire on a 100 yard range with a hunting rifle that has an effective range of 150 yds. Let's work that out shall we? 100 yds (Meters is close to the same) is outside short range so no bonus. Target is a man silouette so no bonus for size. Target is stationary so +30 for that. You undoubtedly took your sweet time aiming (Since nobody was shooting back!) so +20. Finally, You fired your rifle single shot so +10 for that! Hmmm...Mental math...*bell rings* That's a +60 modifier! Let's backtrack that from our 95% success rate. Hmmm...*smoke pours out of ears*, That's a 35 base Ballistic skill! Wait! Isn't that like saying your basic Infantry trooper on a live fire range can hit every time? Of course it is! It starts to get a bit messier when people downrange are really trying to blow YOUR head off though! What's wrong with this scale? As others have pointed out; It's the modifiers that do the scaling for you not your base stat! This debate about scaling is more about Style than substance IMHO. What's wrong with the system as written? It's functional and has worked well through five different games without too much trouble while only having been "tweaked" relatively little! Just sayin...

That numbers are a little tweaked.

If you wanna shoot in the same round, you make only aim once for the +10, not the +20.

As I said before - the +10 "Standard shot" modifier is nothing else but a needless balancing factor in my eyes, but for the calculation, let it remain for now.

+30 on a stationary target ? Wheres that written ?

You get a bonus on helpless targets, but way not every stationary target is helpless by definition. So thats not a bonus you would get on a battlefield at all - besides shooting at targets which are already helpless.

The raw as far as i know do not differ between a moving and a still target, or did I overread that ?

So, that leaves the guardsman in your exampke with a...well...55% chance onstead of your 95% - not such a hero anymore, is he ?

95% would be too much anyway, but around 65-75% in said example would be more realistic I think.

The average guardsman therefore should have around 40-45 BS.

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 DH2 b presentation of NPCs over the DH1 versions...

Well...well..the privilegded few who are blessed with wisdom and understanding... ;D

+30 on a stationary target ? Wheres that written ?

I think he means the Helpless condition. +30 if the target is unable to defend himself. Are you saying these targets can defend themselves.

I also like the increased variety in stats.

As I said before - the +10 "Standard shot" modifier is nothing else but a needless balancing factor in my eyes, but for the calculation, let it remain for now.

If we're going by DH1e RAW the Half Action Standard Attack Attack Action provides no modifiers. Neither does DH2.3b RAW.

Stationary objects, however, do provide a +30 modifier (p.198-199).

But let's try a DH1e Mr.Average at the firing range instead. He's under no pressure, and no special circumstances or environmental conditions apply, because the entire point is to show how a completely average guy normally performs:

Mr. Average has BS:30

He's firing at a stationary Object (+30) of Normal size at a distance of 100 metres.

He's armed with a Lasgun that has a Range of 100 metres.

He has all the time he pleases to make a Full Action Aim Miscellaneous Action (+20).

When he's ready he makes a Half Action Standard Attack Attack Action, with a 30+30+20=80% chance to hit.

That's an 80% chance to hit a normal-sized target at 100 metres, using a completely ordinary weapon. Mr.Average might not be Olympic material (I wouldn't know), but he's a far better shot than someone called Mr.Average has any right to be.

Give him BS:35 instead and a Red Dot Sight or an Accurate weapon, and he becomes as accurate as it is humanly possible to be.

...

How Mr.Average would be on the battlefield is a far more complicated question. It's very possible for both target and shooter to pick up +60 modifiers to dodge and hit, and stacking up a big BS test modifier for a single attack tends to be a lower priority than ensuring you don't get smoked by doing it.

EDIT: Corrected the horrific terminology. In my not the least bit humble opinion, the keyword mess alone is reason enough for a second edition.

To throw a random voice in... I was happy with the stat changes too.

Overall, I was excited about the changes that 2E was making, it was shaping up to be something different to every other game that I've played.

In the end, it's a dice roll, a d100 has a lot of variance.

Personally I like the consistency that higher stats gives you, as you can't always stack every modifier.

For example, my GM had a limit on the number of red dot lasers in my DH1 group.

[...]

95% would be too much anyway, but around 65-75% in said example would be more realistic I think.

The average guardsman therefore should have around 40-45 BS.

Even by real-life standards, a hit-rate of 65-75% in a combat scenario would be nothing short of pure fantasy.

I think Simsum's example pretty much underlines this. If anything, the average guardsman as presented (~35 WS/BS) should have lower stats, not higher. Under completely basic conditions in a combat scenario , there is no way in hell that he should have a base chance to hit something, using a regular lasgun, above 50%.

If played competently, taking cover, bracing against sandbags or debris, taking at least half-action Aim, even this average guardsman can be a potent threat towards the Acolytes (or what-have-you), especially if the guardsmen outnumber the players (who am I kidding? Of course they do!).

And I think that makes complete sense. The average soldier can do good on the shooting range by the rules (far better than anyone have the right to do as a grunt), as showcased by Simsum, but should do rather terribly on the battlefield (as showcased by Reality™), but still be able to stacks the odds in his favour.. which is doable under the current system (assuming Only War as the most recent representative of said system).

To throw a random voice in... I was happy with the stat changes too.

Overall, I was excited about the changes that 2E was making, it was shaping up to be something different to every other game that I've played.

In the end, it's a dice roll, a d100 has a lot of variance.

Personally I like the consistency that higher stats gives you, as you can't always stack every modifier.

For example, my GM had a limit on the number of red dot lasers in my DH1 group.

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 DH2 b presentation of NPCs over the DH1 versions...

I just did a census of every single person alive and can confirm that GauntZero and MILLANDSON are the only two people in the entire world who like the new presentation.

(I like it, too.)

Personally I like the consistency that higher stats gives you, as you can't always stack every modifier.

My preference is the exact opposite, for the exact same reason.

The mod-hunting encourages and very tangibly rewards creative teamwork and personal tactics, and facilitates a greater range of gear that in other systems would be functionally identical.

Basically: it empowers players, giving them greater agency, and more consequences - good and bad - for their actions.

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.

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...

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...

...what?

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.

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 DH2 b presentation of NPCs over the DH1 versions...

I just did a census of every single person alive and can confirm that GauntZero and MILLANDSON are the only two people in the entire world who like the new presentation.

(I like it, too.)

Like I said in the text that you quoted: IF WE ARE TO JUDGE BY THIS THREAD . You didn't make any posts before this one, and therefor were not included in that defined sample.

I also think BS tests have it the easiest to achieve your max modifier (+60). I very rarely hit my max (+30) on skills.

The increased stats give my skills more reliability which is what I care more about.

I played a tech priest through the Apostasy gambit/trilogy, int being a primary stat, yet none of my int skills were reliable.

I could never max my WS modifiers, the best way seemed to be outnumbering them, and in a 3-4 man cell that wasn't achievable with only one character being reasonable at melee.

The scaling in OW/DH1 doesn't seem much of a problem to me. Consider this: You and I are on some world where we are "Invited" to join the Imperial guard. I prove to be way too weak and frail and am immediately executed! That leaves you boy scout! Now you tell me that you've been shooting since you were a kid and you can hit the target every time! Let's assume you're not bogus and really can put rounds on target 95% of the time. (The twentieth round being a jam or whatever.) You fire on a 100 yard range with a hunting rifle that has an effective range of 150 yds. Let's work that out shall we? 100 yds (Meters is close to the same) is outside short range so no bonus. Target is a man silouette so no bonus for size. Target is stationary so +30 for that. You undoubtedly took your sweet time aiming (Since nobody was shooting back!) so +20. Finally, You fired your rifle single shot so +10 for that! Hmmm...Mental math...*bell rings* That's a +60 modifier! Let's backtrack that from our 95% success rate. Hmmm...*smoke pours out of ears*, That's a 35 base Ballistic skill! Wait! Isn't that like saying your basic Infantry trooper on a live fire range can hit every time? Of course it is! It starts to get a bit messier when people downrange are really trying to blow YOUR head off though! What's wrong with this scale? As others have pointed out; It's the modifiers that do the scaling for you not your base stat! This debate about scaling is more about Style than substance IMHO. What's wrong with the system as written? It's functional and has worked well through five different games without too much trouble while only having been "tweaked" relatively little! Just sayin...

That numbers are a little tweaked.

If you wanna shoot in the same round, you make only aim once for the +10, not the +20.

As I said before - the +10 "Standard shot" modifier is nothing else but a needless balancing factor in my eyes, but for the calculation, let it remain for now.

+30 on a stationary target ? Wheres that written ?

You get a bonus on helpless targets, but way not every stationary target is helpless by definition. So thats not a bonus you would get on a battlefield at all - besides shooting at targets which are already helpless.

The raw as far as i know do not differ between a moving and a still target, or did I overread that ?

So, that leaves the guardsman in your exampke with a...well...55% chance onstead of your 95% - not such a hero anymore, is he ?

95% would be too much anyway, but around 65-75% in said example would be more realistic I think.

The average guardsman therefore should have around 40-45 BS.

My numbers are dead on! Despite my being a bit "Tongue in cheek" with my description, and as Simsum already re-proved! My point was exactly what you are trying to tear down. A Guardsman (Roughly the equivalent of a "modern" infantryman) could be fairly accurate against a paper target on the range and still not have a high "Base BS". BTW: For those of you modifier impaired: The final # reflects the ability to hit a Man sized target at 100 meters virtually every time NOT a bullseye! The Bullseye would be a Miniscule (1) target and would therefore apply a -30 modifier (Using proper terms this time for simsum ). The rifle range is not like actual combat though! As Fgdsfg pointed out a 55%-65% accuracy in combat with basic infantry is laughably unlikely. I actually think the 30-35% base skill is pretty good with a "Trained" infantryman!

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 DH2 b presentation of NPCs over the DH1 versions...

I just did a census of every single person alive and can confirm that GauntZero and MILLANDSON are the only two people in the entire world who like the new presentation.

(I like it, too.)

Like I said in the text that you quoted: IF WE ARE TO JUDGE BY THIS THREAD . You didn't make any posts before this one, and therefor were not included in that defined sample.

Your post was unnecessarily provocative, though. At least it came across that way.

I'm not sure where I stand, which is why I haven't posted. Honestly, I think it's a non-issue in a vacuum: Whether a Guardsman has 35 or 45 BS makes absolutely no difference unless you talk about the effects this has on the rest of the system.

I always felt that the plethora of bonuses you were supposed to hunt for in DH1 were a detriment. Mainly because they slowed combat down, and partly because it was somewhat unbalancing compared to melee combat, especially at lower levels. Skills also became incredibly random, which didn't make a whole lot of sense in many situations.

I think I liked that Acolytes in DH2b were generally more competent than the average guardsman. First level Acolytes failing two out of three average skill tests in DH1 was unintentionally comical for a group that's supposedly hand-picked by the Inquisition.

Like I said in the text that you quoted: IF WE ARE TO JUDGE BY THIS THREAD . You didn't make any posts before this one, and therefor were not included in that defined sample.

C'mon, that was an easy one. Let me make this sarcasm thing easier for you to understand: next time I'm being sarcastic, I'll underline it.

By the way, I really like your posting .

(Seriously though, my point was that your attempt to JUDGE BY THIS THREAD was flawed and shouldn't have occurred.)

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 DH2 b presentation of NPCs over the DH1 versions...

I just did a census of every single person alive and can confirm that GauntZero and MILLANDSON are the only two people in the entire world who like the new presentation.

(I like it, too.)

Like I said in the text that you quoted: IF WE ARE TO JUDGE BY THIS THREAD . You didn't make any posts before this one, and therefor were not included in that defined sample.

\/\/\/ something something best bad poster

I wish I was the first to jump on you for this but MaliciousOnion beat me to it. So I guess I'll just congratulate you for both missing the point of his post and for making the stupid posts that you did.

Still running for the title of 'Biggest Troll on the Forums', eh, cps ? Rest easy, I'm pretty sure you are in the lead by a mile...

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

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

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

Not saying I am innocent at all...but cps is a troll. And a big one indeed. Don't let yourself get fooled by the goblin avatar!