There is a thread in the Only War section about this very same thing, and someone and his group decided to run an adventure where they had no TB, one player had 3 characters die in one session, that is not the premise of RPGS, a character is supposed to develop over time, not die in the first outing, not once but 3 separate characters, when they do die it is supposed to be a big thing, because as a player you are supposed to be attached to your character, you play your chosen avatar, you flesh it out, you make it what you want, it is a story that is being told.

That was me, and the 3 characters/session ratio was just for the first adventure with the system when the players were still learning the changes (like, you can't just fire away in the open but get to cover first). In the current adventure, we haven't lost a single character for four sessions. The system is brutal but as soon as you learn to take combat seriously (a weird concept in the WH40K RPGs, I know), you will be fine.

Also ,we don't use Fate Points because we think that FPs are Easy Mode . So those 3 characters were in fact 3 Fate Points burnt for a better future.

And also: Nope, an RPG doesn't necessarily suppose that a character will live very long. Call of Cthulhu being one example: Your character WILL die or go insane, but the way there is a lot of fun.
The premise of an RPG in a general sense is that you take on the role of a character and play it.
It may very well be a short and gruesome role.

You are trying to impose your view of what an RPG is and should be on others. That's pretty rude, on one hand and on the other, makes this discussion pointless, as I don't think I'll ever be able to convince you that RPGs can be so much more and that you'd get more options by ditching this broken mechanism.

Stuff.

This is all pretty sensible and unobjectionable so we should probably just leave it here.

And that's all fine and dandy for you, but I like my fiction to make sense and be internally consistent. (Yes, I know, that means I should leave 40k the Hell alone. I still like quite a few of the books and the setting.)

...

Balenorn crushed most of your flaccid points but I just wanted to say very clearly that internal consistency and realism have no bearing on one another. Internal consistency means that a fiction has an established set of rules for How Things Work and players, once they understand those rules, can reasonably extrapolate the effects of their actions. Realism is the internal consistency of our reality. In a game with magic and space elves and demons, imposing the rules of reality is a recipe for ridiculousness (in a bad way).

You are trying to impose your view of what an RPG is and should be on others. That's pretty rude, on one hand and on the other, makes this discussion pointless, as I don't think I'll ever be able to convince you that RPGs can be so much more and that you'd get more options by ditching this broken mechanism.

His whole point is that RPGs are for having fun and if you're (the plural you, you and your group) not having fun you're doing it wrong. How is that at all objectionable?

That was me, and the 3 characters/session ratio was just for the first adventure with the system when the players were still learning the changes (like, you can't just fire away in the open but get to cover first). In the current adventure, we haven't lost a single character for four sessions. The system is brutal but as soon as you learn to take combat seriously (a weird concept in the WH40K RPGs, I know), you will be fine.

Also ,we don't use Fate Points because we think that FPs are Easy Mode . So those 3 characters were in fact 3 Fate Points burnt for a better future.

This is a great example of why you shouldn't make mechanical changes to a framework without understanding that framework. Also lol at 'easy mode'. "My players need to work hard for their fun!" Grognard.

I think this raises an exilent point about how the rules need to lead to the outcome they should. When TB + storm trooper armour means a las gun can't hurt you you're not playing in what I feel is 40K.

GURPS is great and it's nice to see i'm not alone

Space Marines are not supposed to be "normal" they are not supposed to be troubled by the things "normal" characters are, getting mad with the rules that allow this to happen in this game is ridiculous.

Sure they are. Or rather: alright, so it depends on the version of Space Marines you subscribe to. However, if you want a version that fits in with other character types and into the same game (which I entirely agree is possible, GW already did so in Inquisitor; in fact this is why the Deathwatch was invented in the first place!) then I submit that we should subscribe to the version that supports this best. This extends to both the equipment as well as to vulnerability.

Question time: Why do we think FFG felt a need to buff their bolter damage, both compared to GW's material as well as to what showed up first in Dark Heresy? Thesis: Because the Marines had trouble hurting themselves with their own guns, which is kind of silly when the conflict between SM and CSM is a major thing in the setting.

To make games different from each other they have different mechanics I cannot even believe you brought gurps not having TB and working as some sort of valid argument against it. GAMES are supposed to be different from each other, and they all achieve the concept of the players advancing and becoming more and more powerful with the mechanics the game developers chose to use for that platform, this is no shape or form means you cannot or should not accept how a different system handles its mechanics in its own way within that system.

Of course there's no need to use other game systems as an argument on why a completely different RPG should use the same approach - unless it works better! After all, there is also no need for an RPG to be different just for the sake of being different, is there?

I think this raises an exilent point about how the rules need to lead to the outcome they should. When TB + storm trooper armour means a las gun can't hurt you you're not playing in what I feel is 40K.

Let's be generous and give the storm trooper 5 TB. ST Carapace is AP 6 if I recall correctly. A lasgun on overload is 1d10+5, pen 2, leaving our storm trooper with 9 damage reduction (5+6-2). A roll of 5-10 on a d10 will inflict damage. That's a 60% chance of dealing damage with a basic lasgun.

Granted this is using the new and improved OW rules. Under vanilla DH, lasguns deal 1d10+3, pen 0, leaving the storm trooper with 11 damage reduction. A roll of 9 or 10 will still inflict damage. That's 20%. Not great, but possible. If you roll a 10 under vanilla DH, you stand a good chance of dealing a heck of a lot more damage thanks to exploding Righteous Fury that was neutered significantly in OW. You can also fire on semi-auto, which increases your chances of hitting with more shots, increasing your chances of dealing damage by an amount I'm not sure how to calculate.

I'll give you the math of the game could use a rework, but let's at least use actual math to back it up and not falsely claim that a lasgun cannot wound a storm trooper.

Also lol at 'exilent' and 'difference for its own sake'.

This is a great example of why you shouldn't make mechanical changes to a framework without understanding that framework. Also lol at 'easy mode'. "My players need to work hard for their fun!" Grognard.

Not everyone enjoys the handed-everything-for-free-without-effort- generation of gaming. The idea of "working hard for your fun" has no inherent merit and is not a valid argument on it's own; it's a cop-out self-appointed "not-grognard":s repeat as a mantra.

It's not fun having to work hard for your fun. It's fun working hard. Everything is worth more if you've worked for it. The "Easy" setting of a video game doesn't cut it for many people, and drawing a comparison to modern computer gaming, is one of the reasons more recent CRPG's have had increasingly ridiculously hard difficulty options.

Are all of those people that doesn't run easymodo "Grognards" , to you?

The original Dark Heresy was always meant to be gruelling; it even says, right there in the core rulebook, that dying is part of the game. You should expect to die. Just because some people don't enjoy playing a game the way you enjoy playing it doesn't mean that they are playing it wrong.

This might mean that, yes, they ignore the rules for Fate Points, because they think it makes the game easymode. Because it sorta does. They're there specifically to make the game easier, it's what they're there for. Throwing that out the window because it makes the game too easy hardly makes anyone a grognard.

"Kids these days have no work ethic!" *shakes fist at kids on the lawn* I also love the "handed everything" equals "not dying to a BS roll".

Fate points exist to give players two things: some leeway when a roll doesn't go their way, and an in-rules way to continue their character after fatal injury, instead of crossing out Rigby and writing Bigby in the name field on their character sheet. Taking those away have drastic effects on how the game plays. I'd really like to hear how those 3 players who had characters die felt about it (assuming this wasn't just a meatgrinder combat game, in which case I'm sure it was fine).

Video games and 'easy mode' have nothing to do with it.

I'd really like to hear how those 3 players who had characters die felt about it (assuming this wasn't just a meatgrinder combat game, in which case I'm sure it was fine).

It was one player who lost those 3 characters. That's the joke . And it wasn't that bad as we had known that our characters would drop like flies and after we got accustomed to the new system, it was cool (as I said, we haven't lost anyone for four sessions, even though we have been still playing the super-lethal system).

The original Dark Heresy was always meant to be gruelling; it even says, right there in the core rulebook, that dying is part of the game. You should expect to die. Just because some people don't enjoy playing a game the way you enjoy playing it doesn't mean that they are playing it wrong.

Show me where I have once said any where players should not expect to die.

I have said, time and time again, you are not supposed to die pointlessly over and over, because this is a RPG, when you die it should be a big thing, because it means potentially months and months of effort on your part is gone.

Yes you can die, yes you should fear your character dying, you should not feel invulnerable, nor that you are never really at risk, because that is just as ridiculous in this sort of game as the opposite end of the spectrum, that certain individuals seems to be championing around here.

As I said earlier, every system is the same in this regard, you either have a massive amount of wounds and access to magical healing, or you have something different, like TB & low wound pools and access to magical healing. because it is a game that is supposed to be fun, not real life.

Or why am I not seeing thread after thread asking for the inclusion of recovery tables, and what to do when 50% of my party is inactive for 10+ game sessions while they attempt to recover from a single fight that lasted 10 minutes of game time.

There is one very very big reason why these types of games are not realistic when it comes to handling damage and characters, because it would be bad, bad business, bad game, so bad in fact people would not play it.

You show me a person that claims they are happy to sit around week in week out doing absolutely nothing while their avatar in game recovers and I will show you a liar.

You're creating strawmen arguments and false equivalences left and right.

I think this raises an exilent point about how the rules need to lead to the outcome they should. When TB + storm trooper armour means a las gun can't hurt you you're not playing in what I feel is 40K.

GURPS is great and it's nice to see i'm not alone

Are las guns the only weapons available in this game system?

Why do people persist in making statements like this? This game is full of nasty weapons that will make mincemeat of a tb5 stormtrooper in carapace, and that is how it is designed and balanced, you cannot take one thing in a bubble and go "this is why it doesn't work."

It is not that simple Tb is a core mechanic that nearly everything else in the game is designed around, it does not exist in a bubble it is core to everything.

You're creating strawmen arguments and false equivalences left and right.

You're right. Casting people who want a mechanic to reroll dice occasionally and not die due to bad rolls as wanting to be " handed-everything-for-free-without-effort" is pretty disingenuous.

You're creating strawmen arguments and false equivalences left and right.

Is this directed at me?

Sorry if what I am saying is to complex for you to grasp, but there is no strawman, and no false equivalences in anything I have said.

I could rattle on about all the flaws I see in your arguments but I think the crux of the issue is this; you haven't really given any meaningful evaluation of TB as a mechanic at all. You've thoroughly explained your views on how it creates a feeling of heroic, above average characters (something which is questionable considering NPCs receive hefty damage soak from TB as well), but you haven't explained at all why TB is a good way to handle this.

And cut the bull with rattling on about realistic injury recovery systems, it's barely relevant to the issue at hand. The arguments against TB are not all rooted in realism, and regardless, it's totally reasonable to desire realism in some aspects of the game (such as the damage system) and not others (such as injury recovery). You're not contributing to the discussion in any meaningful way by dragging these things up.

I'm tired and somewhat drunk so this is probably an incoherent mess.

As I said earlier, every system is the same in this regard, you either have a massive amount of wounds and access to magical healing, or you have something different, like TB & low wound pools and access to magical healing. because it is a game that is supposed to be fun, not real life.

Or why am I not seeing thread after thread asking for the inclusion of recovery tables, and what to do when 50% of my party is inactive for 10+ game sessions while they attempt to recover from a single fight that lasted 10 minutes of game time.

Why not have a moderate amount of wounds and no TB? Or better yet, move TB into Criticals, like it was in Inquisitor. This would result in characters being more prone to receive injuries, but at the same time much more likely to survive them.

Really, there are way more options for combat/injury mechanics than just the two you claim here.

That aside, for most normal characters, I'd even say TB & low wound pools is actually no different than having higher wound pools, as I'd hazard a guess that the amount of damage neutralised by low levels of TB is similar to what you'd have lost in hitpoints in other games. Whereas characters with high levels of TB and/or better armour are often enough not getting injured at all, creating balancing problems.

The difference is also that a pool of hitpoints at least makes you "feel" you've been hit every single time it goes through your armour, simply because you know that you can't afford an unlimited amount of flesh wounds, whereas flat TB Soak just means you'll ignore negated hits like some sort of superhero that has bullets bouncing off their chest.

What *I* have seen thread after thread asking is GMs despairing because thanks to TB stacking with armour, players grew too tough for the enemies they threw at them. So there does seem to be a problem, no?

Sure you can, because it's one setting where everything should tie together. Especially in mixed groups where the introduction of higher graded and more dangerous weapons automatically means you're putting less protected characters at greater risk.

This is a problem especially in Dark Heresy, where combat-focused characters are arguably the most likely to go for Toughness advances and better armour (for stacking resilience increase), whereas other characters are just SOL as soon as the GM shows up with enemies specifically geared for taking on that one PC.

As I said earlier, every system is the same in this regard, you either have a massive amount of wounds and access to magical healing, or you have something different, like TB & low wound pools and access to magical healing. because it is a game that is supposed to be fun, not real life.

Or why am I not seeing thread after thread asking for the inclusion of recovery tables, and what to do when 50% of my party is inactive for 10+ game sessions while they attempt to recover from a single fight that lasted 10 minutes of game time.

Why not have a moderate amount of wounds and no TB? Or better yet, move TB into Criticals, like it was in Inquisitor. This would result in characters being more prone to receive injuries, but at the same time much more likely to survive them.

Really, there are way more options for combat/injury mechanics than just the two you claim here.

That aside, for most normal characters, I'd even say TB & low wound pools is actually no different than having higher wound pools, as I'd hazard a guess that the amount of damage neutralised by low levels of TB is similar to what you'd have lost in hitpoints in other games. Whereas characters with high levels of TB and/or better armour are often enough not getting injured at all, creating balancing problems.

The difference is also that a pool of hitpoints at least makes you "feel" you've been hit every single time it goes through your armour, simply because you know that you can't afford an unlimited amount of flesh wounds, whereas flat TB Soak just means you'll ignore negated hits like some sort of superhero that has bullets bouncing off their chest.

What *I* have seen thread after thread asking is GMs despairing because thanks to TB stacking with armour, players grew too tough for the enemies they threw at them. So there does seem to be a problem, no?

Are las guns the only weapons available in this game system?

Why do people persist in making statements like this? This game is full of nasty weapons that will make mincemeat of a tb5 stormtrooper in carapace, and that is how it is designed and balanced, you cannot take one thing in a bubble and go "this is why it doesn't work."

Sure you can, because it's one setting where everything should tie together. Especially in mixed groups where the introduction of higher graded and more dangerous weapons automatically means you're putting less protected characters at greater risk.

This is a problem especially in Dark Heresy, where combat-focused characters are arguably the most likely to go for Toughness advances and better armour (for stacking resilience increase), whereas other characters are just SOL as soon as the GM shows up with enemies specifically geared for taking on that one PC.

You keep mentioning all these other games and their rule systems, last try I guess before I give up on this thread.

This is Dark Heresy,

Not Gurps

Not Inquisitor

IT IS DARK HERESY.

The reason it has TB is because in DH the game developers wanted to do something different, not just copy paste another games rules. and that is the up, down and side of it.

And it works just peachy, nothing is is immune to everything, there is always something bigger and badder to deal with, and it is great.

It is Dark Heresy, and it'll still be Dark Heresy if the injury mechanics change, regardless of if they change to something pre-existing or something new entirely.

And no, the DH developers didn't want to 'do something new', these rules have existed since WHFRP, which launched in 1986. DH is incredibly derivative of both WHFRP and Inquisitor. Why not steal the injury system from Inquisitor instead of WHFRP? Neither is more or less derivative.

I could rattle on about all the flaws I see in your arguments but I think the crux of the issue is this; you haven't really given any meaningful evaluation of TB as a mechanic at all. You've thoroughly explained your views on how it creates a feeling of heroic, above average characters (something which is questionable considering NPCs receive hefty damage soak from TB as well), but you haven't explained at all why TB is a good way to handle this.

And cut the bull with rattling on about realistic injury recovery systems, it's barely relevant to the issue at hand. The arguments against TB are not all rooted in realism, and regardless, it's totally reasonable to desire realism in some aspects of the game (such as the damage system) and not others (such as injury recovery). You're not contributing to the discussion in any meaningful way by dragging these things up.

I'm tired and somewhat drunk so this is probably an incoherent mess.

So let me get this right..you want Tb removing because it is not very realistic? but you do not want damage to be really realistic? hahah

You people make me laugh, "Take this out it's not realistic enough". "But do not make the combat truly realistic, we still want it make believe."

So one form of make believe is perfectly fine and acceptable, but another form of make believe you personally do not like is wrong. Amazing.

I'd say that TB works just fine, how many people are here posting about it? 10/20/30? How many people play DH worldwide? lets say a few thousand, so not even 1% of the playerbase are here complaining about it, sure it really is a terrible game breaking mechanic *rolls eyes*.

No matter which system is used for dealing with wounds and damage, it is all UNREALISTIC. you people make my head hurt.

Yes, it's entirely reasonable to want a degree of realism in your game while eschewing or glossing over certain elements of the simulation for the sake of playability and fun. I don't see how that's hard to grasp.

It is Dark Heresy, and it'll still be Dark Heresy if the injury mechanics change, regardless of if they change to something pre-existing or something new entirely.

And no, the DH developers didn't want to 'do something new', these rules have existed since WHFRP, which launched in 1986. DH is incredibly derivative of both WHFRP and Inquisitor. Why not steal the injury system from Inquisitor instead of WHFRP? Neither is more or less derivative.

This. On top of this, this isn't Dark Heresy, this is Dark Heresy 2: The Betaning. We should be discussing problems with the original system and ways to do better.

I agree the combat system, in particular damage and wounding, needs to be reworked. Not because of any 'realism' complaint, but because there are simply too many operations to figure out what happens when a character decides "I shoot my gun at the man." On top of this, there a lot of weird edge cases (that are usually blown out of proportion) and weapons that have no reason to ever see use. There are weird kinks in the system that need to be excised.

We can do better than the system that exists in DH1. I want my grimdark spacewizard to be able to shoot mans in a way that is quick for players to determine, is internally consistent with the setting, and has a clear mechanical framework. And frankly we've got 5 games using the same basic system; I'm ready for something different.

Show me where I have once said any where players should not expect to die. [...]

Why would I? I don't even remember addressing you.

It is Dark Heresy, and it'll still be Dark Heresy if the injury mechanics change, regardless of if they change to something pre-existing or something new entirely.

And no, the DH developers didn't want to 'do something new', these rules have existed since WHFRP, which launched in 1986. DH is incredibly derivative of both WHFRP and Inquisitor. Why not steal the injury system from Inquisitor instead of WHFRP? Neither is more or less derivative.

This. On top of this, this isn't Dark Heresy, this is Dark Heresy 2: The Betaning. We should be discussing problems with the original system and ways to do better.

I agree the combat system, in particular damage and wounding, needs to be reworked. Not because of any 'realism' complaint, but because there are simply too many operations to figure out what happens when a character decides "I shoot my gun at the man." On top of this, there a lot of weird edge cases (that are usually blown out of proportion) and weapons that have no reason to ever see use. There are weird kinks in the system that need to be excised.

We can do better than the system that exists in DH1. I want my grimdark spacewizard to be able to shoot mans in a way that is quick for players to determine, is internally consistent with the setting, and has a clear mechanical framework. And frankly we've got 5 games using the same basic system; I'm ready for something different.

Now this is something I can fully agree with.

I personally never cared for the crit tables, always just copied pasted from one game to the next, and slowing the game down considerably. A streamlined version needs to be introduced.

Balenorn, please don't use the term "make believe" in a pejorative manner on my forum about fighting space elves with rocket guns. My heart can't take it.

Let's be generous and give the storm trooper 5 TB. ST Carapace is AP 6 if I recall correctly. A lasgun on overload is 1d10+5, pen 2, leaving our storm trooper with 9 damage reduction (5+6-2). A roll of 5-10 on a d10 will inflict damage. That's a 60% chance of dealing damage with a basic lasgun.

I think this raises an exilent point about how the rules need to lead to the outcome they should. When TB + storm trooper armour means a las gun can't hurt you you're not playing in what I feel is 40K.

Granted this is using the new and improved OW rules. Under vanilla DH, lasguns deal 1d10+3, pen 0, leaving the storm trooper with 11 damage reduction. A roll of 9 or 10 will still inflict damage. That's 20%. Not great, but possible. If you roll a 10 under vanilla DH, you stand a good chance of dealing a heck of a lot more damage thanks to exploding Righteous Fury that was neutered significantly in OW. You can also fire on semi-auto, which increases your chances of hitting with more shots, increasing your chances of dealing damage by an amount I'm not sure how to calculate.

I'll give you the math of the game could use a rework, but let's at least use actual math to back it up and not falsely claim that a lasgun cannot wound a storm trooper.

Also lol at 'exilent' and 'difference for its own sake'.

OK so I need best Carapace or that + 5 from homeworld to make it true but you get the point.

I think this raises an exilent point about how the rules need to lead to the outcome they should. When TB + storm trooper armour means a las gun can't hurt you you're not playing in what I feel is 40K.

GURPS is great and it's nice to see i'm not alone

Are las guns the only weapons available in this game system?

Why do people persist in making statements like this? This game is full of nasty weapons that will make mincemeat of a tb5 stormtrooper in carapace, and that is how it is designed and balanced, you cannot take one thing in a bubble and go "this is why it doesn't work."

It is not that simple Tb is a core mechanic that nearly everything else in the game is designed around, it does not exist in a bubble it is core to everything.

Yes I could give everyone Hell or Bolt weapons but that just means I have to pick between rich underhive gangs or ping combat (one breaks immersion the other is dull for players).

This. On top of this, this isn't Dark Heresy, this is Dark Heresy 2: The Betaning. We should be discussing problems with the original system and ways to do better.

It is Dark Heresy, and it'll still be Dark Heresy if the injury mechanics change, regardless of if they change to something pre-existing or something new entirely.

And no, the DH developers didn't want to 'do something new', these rules have existed since WHFRP, which launched in 1986. DH is incredibly derivative of both WHFRP and Inquisitor. Why not steal the injury system from Inquisitor instead of WHFRP? Neither is more or less derivative.

I agree the combat system, in particular damage and wounding, needs to be reworked. Not because of any 'realism' complaint, but because there are simply too many operations to figure out what happens when a character decides "I shoot my gun at the man." On top of this, there a lot of weird edge cases (that are usually blown out of proportion) and weapons that have no reason to ever see use. There are weird kinks in the system that need to be excised.

We can do better than the system that exists in DH1. I want my grimdark spacewizard to be able to shoot mans in a way that is quick for players to determine, is internally consistent with the setting, and has a clear mechanical framework. And frankly we've got 5 games using the same basic system; I'm ready for something different.

So what do we do about combat? I don't want it to break immersion you don't want it to slow the game down and Balenorn (and others) wants rid of the crit table.

I think I would favor a TB damage "Step" system but I've never played Inquisitor so I might not like it in play and we still have the table. We could half TB for arms legs and head so it's less useful. The strait to table thing from the beta was not over popular and can break immersion with odd results. Last that I can think of is hitpoints like we have. Whatever wound system used needs to alow for the big stuff as well and as it's late I'm going to post and hope this makes sense.