Granted, Toughness doing something is a benefit - it represents the difference between a scrawny, malnourished beggar and a healthy, trained warrior when it comes to resisting the effects of injury.

Whether this should actually make a difference when it comes to such terrible weapons as futuristic laser rifles that flash-boil your limbs, or armour-piercing miniature rocket that explode inside your body is, of course, something else to consider.*

And then, naturally, it having operate as a simple soak like armour is not the only way this could be represented.

tl;dr - I'm definitively in favour of keeping Toughness having an effect on resilience, but I'm ardently opposed to it having this effect.

*: quick idea - as yet another possible alternative, perhaps TB should only apply for damage from Primitive weapons?

Or even help the body to heal or recover faster from fatigue or Medicae treatment.

Granted, Toughness doing something is a benefit - it represents the difference between a scrawny, malnourished beggar and a healthy, trained warrior when it comes to resisting the effects of injury.

Consider this: Toughness already;

1.) Determines starting wounds (And thus resilience)

2.) Determines resistance to poison and disease.

3.) Determines Carrying capacity. (Along with strength.)

4.) Is the governing stat for some 7 talents (Using only war rules)

5.) Is the determining stat for fatigue (Thus, Stamina)

Why must it also be an additional damage resistance?

Consider this: Toughness already;

1.) Determines starting wounds (And thus resilience)

2.) Determines resistance to poison and disease.

3.) Determines Carrying capacity. (Along with strength.)

4.) Is the governing stat for some 7 talents (Using only war rules)

5.) Is the determining stat for fatigue (Thus, Stamina)

Why must it also be an additional damage resistance?

Out of this 5, you will only need, like, one: wounds. The rest is pretty bleh, like how you can use Perception to a plethora of things yet you will still use it for Awareness 90% of the times.

Why must it also be an additional damage resistance?

Good point. It is pretty much doing the same job twice, innit?

In that case I'll withdraw my earlier scepticism. Most of FFG's 40k RPGs do not seem to have Toughness modify starting Wounds, so I guess I just forgot about this bit.

Consider this: Toughness already;

1.) Determines starting wounds (And thus resilience)

2.) Determines resistance to poison and disease.

3.) Determines Carrying capacity. (Along with strength.)

4.) Is the governing stat for some 7 talents (Using only war rules)

5.) Is the determining stat for fatigue (Thus, Stamina)

Why must it also be an additional damage resistance?

Out of this 5, you will only need, like, one: wounds. The rest is pretty bleh, like how you can use Perception to a plethora of things yet you will still use it for Awareness 90% of the times.

That's a rather narrow view if you think about it. All of these things have a direct and tangible effect on gameplay. If you only carry a basic weapon and armor, ride around in vehicles everywhere and never, EVER come into contact with the Dark eldar than you are right! Otherwise, you might want to rethink that!

That's a rather narrow view if you think about it. All of these things have a direct and tangible effect on gameplay. If you only carry a basic weapon and armor, ride around in vehicles everywhere and never, EVER come into contact with the Dark eldar than you are right! Otherwise, you might want to rethink that!

Nah, the problem is that in these cases, you usualy want to something else than use your Toughness: Strength is better to handle carrying capacity, fatigue is a problem no matter how many you can take and it is better to dodge Toxic weapons than risk the extra damage.

Carrying and lifting capacity are determined by the sum of the two stats. (OW pg. 36) I believe you are speaking about which stats to advance or assign high. I was referring to what they actually do. And, if your dodge fails it's always good to have a good save to fall back on!

If anything, Toughness should not determine how much can be carried but how far and how fast a heavy load can be carried if need be. Toughness should determine the "stamina" of a person, meaning if someone lifted a 150 lb gate, their strength would determine "if" they could physically lift it and their toughness would determine how long that they could hold it open.

Example:

Two Guardsmen are required to force march over a flat and level meadow to rondezvous with a transport. They are both carrying "heavy" loads. Both guardsmen have the same strength but guardsman 2 has a higher Toughness. To both men, the "heavy" load feels the same on their shoulders but guardsman 2 having the higher toughness (and stamina) will be able to carry it longer and farther than guardsman 1. He just simply doesn't get tired as fast as his companion and can tolerate the fatigue of the march much better.

Probably the best misspelling of 'rendezvous' I've seem to date.

Honestly all of this carry weight and fatigue stuff is ancillary to the core game. The root of the problem is Tb-based damage soak, the question in what to do about it. You have situations where high-pen low base damage are unable to damage high-toughness enemies (see the Venerator Blade, Lathe Wolds) and high-damage, low-pen weapons failing to do anything at all to high AP targets. I don't have an issue with this dichotomy, but at the extreme ends of things it breaks down to having completely ineffectual weapons and weapons that will ruin your day, toughness and armor aside. I think leaving things as they are but having Pen apply to the sum of Tb+AP, with a little rework of damage/pen numbers would go a long way to solving things. Toughness still helps without providing soak you can't do anything about.

Thanks for the spelling lesson.

Just an idea, why not make Pen a quality that does more damage. Do we really need an extra calculation to do? That's what it technically does anyway in a slightly more complicated way.

Carrying and lifting capacity are determined by the sum of the two stats. (OW pg. 36) I believe you are speaking about which stats to advance or assign high. I was referring to what they actually do. And, if your dodge fails it's always good to have a good save to fall back on!

Np, I meant Strength is a better choice because Athletics/Heft/Endurance - it simply has more utility for the given task. And if your dodge fails, you are screwed because DE have Toxic (2) weapons at minimum, so you will have a meager 20% chance to counter it even with T40. Yeah, it is good to have, but you won't swallow Toxic hits like a pro just because of your good Toughness...

Thanks for the spelling lesson.

Just an idea, why not make Pen a quality that does more damage. Do we really need an extra calculation to do? That's what it technically does anyway in a slightly more complicated way.

That's not exactly how Pen works. If Pen added damage you could just add the Pen value to the weapon's damage modifier (the +3 in 1d10+3) and do away with Pen entirely. Pen exists to simulate how well a weapon pierces armor, and only that (meaning now how damaging a weapon is is not reflected at all by its Pen value).

I'm in favor of anything that reduces the number of calculations in a round of combat, so if they reworked the damage numbers and did away with Pen entirely I could see it working. Just subtract your soak from the incoming damage.

I know what it simulates which is nice for realism. What I was saying was that it negates a certain amount of AP which allows more damage to be taken thereby in a roundabout way, enabling the target to take more damage.

But if we are really talking about realism, an armor piercing round is going to be more destructive to the body than a standard round which will lose most of it's momentum being blocked by armor.

So, if we take the realistic path, an armor piercing bullet (Pen) will not only negate APs but also be more destructive to the body causing more damage.

If we aren't going to consider this, then why make Pen more complicated than it has to be? Why not just directly relate it to more damage rather than complicate the rule system with an extra calculation?

Just an idea, why not make Pen a quality that does more damage. Do we really need an extra calculation to do? That's what it technically does anyway in a slightly more complicated way.

... but this is getting way too complicated, innit?

It's certainly more complicated but oddly enough, it's more consistent with the rules. I mean, why should armor be considered anything different than "cover" when considering how it can be worn down into no protection at all. I do like the all or nothing idea though. That part of it is pretty simplified.

Too complicated. Armor degradation is a pain in the rear in video games (where all the math is handled for you) and implementing it in a tabletop game would be even more of a headache. Very few people want to track those fiddly bits.

In my opinion, striving for realism is a fool's errand. The combat system should be internally consistent, yes, but designing it from the standpoint of trying to simulate reality is a losing proposition.

I don't know what the ideal solution is (that would require copious testing), but I'd like to see something simpler than OW.

If Damage, Pen, TB soak, AP, and all that jazz are going to be redone, I honestly think it would be of benefit to have scaling Characteristic caps.

Edit- Which of course means a rework of the "new" injury mechanics...or going back to tracking Wounds?

If Damage, Pen, TB soak, AP, and all that jazz are going to be redone, I honestly think it would be of benefit to have scaling Characteristic caps.

(I would be in favour of lowering both gaps as well as the "size" of said advances, though)

Which of course means a rework of the "new" injury mechanics...or going back to tracking Wounds?

Whilst feeling partially inspired by it, it is neither the simplistic approach from Inquisitor, nor the even simpler hitpoint system from DH1. But either would be fine by me, as long as we get away from TB acting as skin armour.

Sidenote:

I don't know what the ideal solution is (that would require copious testing), but I'd like to see something simpler than OW.

Matter of preferences, though - all depending on how much one prefers to be written down as opposed to systematic improvisation.

Sidenote:

For what it's worth, the entire game seems too complicated. I know that ultrathick rulebooks and minutiae-tracking mechanics were "in" for quite a few years now, but looking at Dark Heresy or the new edition of Shadowrun, it feels almost seductively refreshing to have a "back to the roots" game like the Dragon Age P&P where the entire group just needs half an hour until everyone is ready to start playing, including the GM. And this includes character creation.

Matter of preferences, though - all depending on how much one prefers to be written down as opposed to systematic improvisation.

Couldn't agree more. I honestly don't understand some people's clinging to a system that hasn't really changed since the game came out half a decade ago. Well, I understand it, I just find it regrettable.

derail: tell me more about this Dragon Age P&P...

I know what it simulates which is nice for realism. What I was saying was that it negates a certain amount of AP which allows more damage to be taken thereby in a roundabout way, enabling the target to take more damage.

But if we are really talking about realism, an armor piercing round is going to be more destructive to the body than a standard round which will lose most of it's momentum being blocked by armor.

Oddly enough, this is not true IRL. A high-velocity AP round will in fact "Over penetrate" a softer target without applying a higher degree of "Static shock". Thus they are no more inherently lethal than the standard bullet would be. My whole point to this was "Why not ignore toughness soak altogether?" I don't really see this as a game breaker. On average this will mean 2-4 points of additional damage per attack. This will make the game slightly more lethal (A good thing IMHO) and also make sure that there are no "supermen" chewing on bullets for their own personal amusement. Characters will need to dodge or take cover a little more often and Space marines will not be completely invulnerable to the humble lasgun (Which they are not in TT 40k.). Although with 10 armor on their body it's pretty **** close! It's also one less calculation during combat!

I know what it simulates which is nice for realism. What I was saying was that it negates a certain amount of AP which allows more damage to be taken thereby in a roundabout way, enabling the target to take more damage.

But if we are really talking about realism, an armor piercing round is going to be more destructive to the body than a standard round which will lose most of it's momentum being blocked by armor.

Oddly enough, this is not true IRL. A high-velocity AP round will in fact "Over penetrate" a softer target without applying a higher degree of "Static shock". Thus they are no more inherently lethal than the standard bullet would be. My whole point to this was "Why not ignore toughness soak altogether?" I don't really see this as a game breaker. On average this will mean 2-4 points of additional damage per attack. This will make the game slightly more lethal (A good thing IMHO) and also make sure that there are no "supermen" chewing on bullets for their own personal amusement. Characters will need to dodge or take cover a little more often and Space marines will not be completely invulnerable to the humble lasgun (Which they are not in TT 40k.). Although with 10 armor on their body it's pretty **** close! It's also one less calculation during combat!

I would be in favor of this. I don't see why the system couldn't operate without "skin armour as well. As pointed out before by another member, Toughness already has a good many purposes. If it has to play a role in damage, I still like the idea of TB negating fatigue or crit effects.

A high-velocity AP round will in fact "Over penetrate" a softer target without applying a higher degree of "Static shock". Thus they are no more inherently lethal than the standard bullet would be.

Couldn't an argument be made about a higher chance for exit wounds, though?

I'm no expert on medicine, it's just something that came to mind.

Couldn't agree more. I honestly don't understand some people's clinging to a system that hasn't really changed since the game came out half a decade ago. Well, I understand it, I just find it regrettable.

Depending on the individual, it may be either appreciation of continuity, fear of the unknown, or a simple preference for more extensive game systems that attempt to cover anything with an extra rule. I can understand each of these factors, and have actually felt the same for quite some time. It was fairly recent that I "got out of that phase", so to say.

I almost said "grew out", but this would indicate that my current stance would be better. I don't really think it is, but rather that is is just ... well, a matter of taste. I can see advantages and disadvantages on either side of the fence.

It uses a newly created d6-based system called Adventure Game Engine (or AGE) which Green Ronin made for Dragon Age, but which they want to use for more games in the future, too. It's fairly simplistic and will probably remind a lot of people of other games they've played.

Basic tests are 3d6 + your attribute + focus (if applicable) versus a Target Number indicating the difficulty.

Focuses are like skills, but instead of having ranks, you buy it only once, for a simple +2 bonus to the appropriate tests.

What makes the game truly stand out is how fluent combat is. Aside from some very basic stances (granting a small bonus or penalty to your Attack/Defense) there are no special actions you can take. Stuff like disarming or knocking down an opponent is instead a "Stunt" which you get to choose after rolling doubles on a successful test, with one of the dice determining how many points you get to invest into Stunt effects.

Aside from making combat more simple and fast, this also has the added psychological benefit of only having the player expect cool stuff when it's already certain that they will succeed. In essence, where other games have you "I'm gonna try to knock him off that ledge! *modified attack roll* *fail* Aww...", Dragon Age instead has you roll a standard attack, and then have you look for cool ideas once the dice have already told you that you can actually pull them off.

The core rules fit into a thin booklet of ~80 pages, more than half of which is just background information. This Quick Start Guide should give you a good impression regarding how little there actually is to understand (and conversely, how fast a group of players might get started, provided they already have an idea of what they want to play).

Since it is so simple, it is also incredibly easy to modify, since there are not many interconnected layers you might risk "breaking" with your own ideas. For example, I wrote up this Mass Effect conversion (though this is actually more complicated than the base game, as I expanded a bit on character creation and ranged combat, not to mention a made-from-scratch attempt at vehicle combat rules) ...

Here's a short video of Wil Wheaton playing a game of Dragon Age, for better visualisation.

Simplification certainly has its downsides, especially since the DA RPG has, at its core, only three classes (warrior, rogue, mage). Then again, modifications and houserules are encouraged, and with Set 2's specialisations, the game has shown how easy it would be to expand these classes via specialisations. You can "tack on" both official as well as house rules on an as-needed basis. Very modular, hence the easy of tweaking it. I felt a similar sense of encouragement and surge of creativity in Only War, even though that was just because of how easy it was to come up with new regimental types etc.

A high-velocity AP round will in fact "Over penetrate" a softer target without applying a higher degree of "Static shock". Thus they are no more inherently lethal than the standard bullet would be.

Couldn't an argument be made about a higher chance for exit wounds, though?

I'm no expert on medicine, it's just something that came to mind.

I'm no expert on either, but I do know that yes, you could. But exit wounds tends to be a very good thing.

If all the kinetic energy is transferred to your body, then your body probably isn't in the greatest shape afterwards. Plus, that a bullet lacks the energy to go straight through you, in no way means it lacks the energy to carve a long and deadly path around your insides.

Further still, it's not healthy to have things like bullets stuck inside you. They can delay or prevent your wound from closing and from healing, and if you're very unlucky they can end up in major vessels, which can do all sorts of unpleasant things, like crippling blood supply to limbs & major organs, or if if it's a small bullet, get it pumped into your heart where it will kill you pretty much instantly.

Through & through bullet wounds are, generally speaking, the least bad kind.

I am wondering if anyone would be kind enough to answer a few questions for me, and I am in no way seeking to insult, belittle or attempt to put people or their views down, I am genuinely curious.

These games are fantasy games, they are made up...make believe, and I myself have been playing many various games for the past 24 years, so after reading this thread ( and so I am not implying anyone is wrong to enjoy them, I do myself deeply), my question is this :

You are supposed to be at the very basic premise of these games, a hero, you are not supposed to be following the same rules that normal people do, you are supposed to be above normal in every shape and form, this is not supposed to be a realistic representation of the struggles a normal person experiences in said game universe. So why struggle with rules that allow you to be a hero? rules that follow the very basic premise of any RPG.