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.

In the 1st edition of Dark Heresy, you were supposed to be following the same rules that normal people do, you were supposed to be normal in every shape and form, it was supposed to be a realistic representation of the struggles a normal person with an extraordinary calling in said game universe.

Sorry to c&p but phone.

Anyway, you're completely right about DH2e and most (but not all) rpgs. It's the primary reason I don't play those games. When I want superheroes (by whatever name), I play the GW wargames.

Tastes differ & stuff. What you want isn't wrong. But I wish you wouldn't ask for it in one of the few games that cater to me. Because what I want isn't wrong either.

Tastes differ & stuff. What you want isn't wrong. But I wish you wouldn't ask for it in one of the few games that cater to me. Because what I want isn't wrong either.

That really sums it up.

Personally, I've just grown tired and bored of the uberepic, exaggerated heroics that we are bombarded with, and instead prefer flawed characters that feel like they are truly at danger - vulnerable and exposed, so as to make these characters and their actions feel all the more real and tangible. I still like heroics, but I'd want to see them achieved against the odds, not with them, as the latter just comes across as ... well, a bit cheap.

An ideal system, I think, would find a compromise between making player characters feel exceptional and allowing heroics, yet at the same time make them feel vulnerable and at risk, so as to make us fear for them and root for them, rather than simply putting them on a pedestal of unachievable grandeur.

And for what it's worth, I think the majority of game systems are succeeding at this. Player characters tend to have an edge by generally featuring slightly higher profiles or possessing a range of talents that allow them to overcome their opposition. The aforementioned criticism against certain aspects of this RPG's rules is directed at said aspects pushing the player characters above this threshold and making them so powerful that they feel like they are breaking the rules of reality, and in some cases even the laws of physic s.

tl;dr: I'd like to see something in-between a normal person and a superhero. A "normal hero", if you will.

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.

I don't think any RPG is about the player characters being heroes in that sense. To me, Dark Heresy is about characters given an immense responsibility and the inevitability of buckling under the weight of the tasks it requires. Player characters will, at some point, lose their minds entirely, succumb to the temptations of demon-kind and be forever damned, or die ignoble deaths at the hands of those they pursue (thanks to the very unforgiving nature of the game's combat).

DH player characters are the heroes though, just not in the way they are in other games. They're given carte blanche to violate just about every law normal people must abide by, the resources and backing of a powerful secret police organization and very little oversight. They are, by their authority, not normal people. Physically, however, they are very much human (at least at the start of the game).

That said, it is still a game. I have no problem with characters being able to survive multiple gunshots because, frankly, if they weren't, you'd stand the very real chance of prematurely ending the story every time you initiated combat.

It comes down to what kind of story you want to tell. DH is not a good system for a combat heavy, save the villagers dungeon crawl. It's a great system for driving characters down the road to insanity and damnation and forcing players to make difficult moral decisions.

I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating:

Dark Heresy does many things well, some more well than others. As cps says, it's good for driving PCs down the road to insanity and damnation. It definitely isn't intended for combat heavy game play, but (here's the repeat) combat is an unfortunate possibility in Dark Heresy.

Sometimes poor choices are made and things happen, or maybe things just happen the PCs have no control over, then things get out of hand, then things turn deadly. I think this is the theme the combat system of Dark Heresy is meant to drive home- mess around with fire, get burned.

Whilst I believe that this was the original intention under the original Black Industries team, I have a suspicion that the game has evolved towards something more heroic after the license transfer. The original rules were (for the most part) never replaced, but it would explain certain supplements.

Not that I have too much of a problem with this, though I believe that the "sweet spot" has been overshot by now. Then again, I always saw the rules in Dark Heresy as the foundation not just for investigative stuff, but for anything you could do in 40k. Which is probably why I would like a Unified Ruleset so much. It would make the game feel more consistent whilst simultaneously opening it up for more gameplay styles, provided the GMs want to put in the work.

I forgot to mention that DH also does black comedy very well. Regardless of how we set out, every single game of DH I've played has devolved into the players constantly trying to outrun the incompetence-sparked cascade of disaster entirely of their own making. We're like the grimdark Three Stooges. Except there's a half dozen of us.

My apologies, Lynata; I was speaking of Dark Heresy as released by BI. I forget sometimes what I hear myself saying in my head isn't heard by anyone else

I agree the "sweet spot" has been overshot- Book of Judgment, Daemon Hunters, The Lathe Worlds and, to some extent Blood of Martyrs, all seemed intent on amping things up several notches. I do appreciate the lore those publications contain, though.

Perhaps because combat is many time inevitable the combat system receives so much focus. I'm sure a game can be run entirely without it, but I (personally) wouldn't enjoy running or playing in that game. However, a system has to be in place, and not just in case. But you are correct- Dark Heresy (any rendition) should offer more than combat and madness. I think the investigative tools included in the Beta were a tremendous step in the right direction.

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.

In the 1st edition of Dark Heresy, you were supposed to be following the same rules that normal people do, you were supposed to be normal in every shape and form, it was supposed to be a realistic representation of the struggles a normal person with an extraordinary calling in said game universe.

Sorry to c&p but phone.

Anyway, you're completely right about DH2e and most (but not all) rpgs. It's the primary reason I don't play those games. When I want superheroes (by whatever name), I play the GW wargames.

Tastes differ & stuff. What you want isn't wrong. But I wish you wouldn't ask for it in one of the few games that cater to me. Because what I want isn't wrong either.

Firstly I said hero, not super hero which are two very very different things, the basic premise of any RPG is to play something different than the norm, even original DH is the same.

These are some of the titles/Text explaining for the end rank for each playable class :

Loremaster Magister : Magisters posses an implicit understanding of the nature of the galaxy, and man's place within it. Through the study of this forbidden knowledge they unlock hidden powers.

Lord Marshal : As the Imperium is mighty, so too is the Lord Marshal, his will is not to be blunted by the petty whims of circumstance. the cold rule of law is his only measure and woe betide those who fall short.

Assassin Palatine : Where there are Assassins, so too is there the Assassin Palatine. Often in control of vast guilds of killers, Assassin Palatine are both charismatic leaders and cold-blooded killers.

Hireophant : The Hierophant whispers in the ears of kings and governors, counselling on matters spiritual, political and malefic, Hierophants study the greatest enemies of mankind, to discover how they may be crushed beneath the armies of the worlds they advise.

Commander : Commanders control the entire flow of battle, from planning to execution, Imperial Commanders have at their disposal the greatest armies in the known galaxy, and the cold hard determination to use them.

Scholar Empyrean : The mind of the Scholar Empyrean ranges free, even whilst their will is securely chained to the immeasurable protection of the Emperor's own soul. Studying the deepest mysteries of psychic ability, the Scholar Empyrean cares little for worldly goods or the petty demands of the corpus.

Charlatan : The Charlatan is a master thief, who can bind even planetary governors to their web of elaborate deceit. Using sophisticated and long-term plans, they are architects of cunning subterfuges that put even the sharpest of lawmen on the back foot.

Magos : The Magos has perfected and refined his field of expertise to render him the master of a certain study. From fleshwise Magos Biologis to the alien hunting Magos Xenologis, these sage individuals serve the Adeptus Mechanicus with their enormous accumulated knowledge.

From page 12 of the DH rule book : You, out of the countless billions have been chosen to play a part in a war so great and terrible that ordinary men must never learn its secrets.

These things put paid to your idea in DH you were supposed to be normal, you are not supposed to be normal, in no RPG does the game system work around you being normal, it is the very most basic tenant of any RPG you play someone special, and that is why we have pages and pages of skills and talents, and gear, and advancement paths so you can become more special the more you play.

So again...why do you cherry pick which parts you think are stupid, yet willingly ignore the rest which are no less stupid. If you do not want to be special you are playing the entirely wrong kind of games, because all RPGs are about not being normal.

...and that is why we have pages and pages of skills and talents, and gear, and advancement(s)...

To be fair, NPCs also have access to these things, and many of them are nothing but ranking officials or the lucky and long-lived, and they know nothing of "terrible secrets", which makes them ordinary.

I concede that PC can become heroes- unsung, unknown, and unremembered, and so heroes in their own minds, and therefor no more important than any other Imperial citizen, or "normal."

You're clinging pretty hard to the heroism angle, but the thing is that's hardly the only reason people want Toughness Bonus soak gone. Personally, how heroic I want the game to be has nothing to do with it; I don't like the fact that it renders entire categories of weapons useless, and in the more extreme cases (see Deathwatch), trivialises actual armour.

So again...why do you cherry pick which parts you think are stupid, yet willingly ignore the rest which are no less stupid. If you do not want to be special you are playing the entirely wrong kind of games, because all RPGs are about not being normal.

I feel like I'm coming into the middle of a discussion. I've only been skimming the tail end of this thread (as it's been mostly broing-as-hell discussion of how exactly Toughness should relate to Fatigue and how much math we can throw into calculating whatever), so my question is:

What is it people have said that you're taking issue with here? I'm totally with you that player characters are by definition the stars of the story and above and beyond what's normal for people in the setting, but I'm not clear on what you're asking.

You're clinging pretty hard to the heroism angle, but the thing is that's hardly the only reason people want Toughness Bonus soak gone. Personally, how heroic I want the game to be has nothing to do with it; I don't like the fact that it renders entire categories of weapons useless, and in the more extreme cases (see Deathwatch), trivialises actual armour.

It sounds to me that your problem is not with the fact that toughness reduces damage, but the fact that the game's math isn't actually that well designed in the first place. Don't confuse a symptom for the cause.

Re: TB

Would it be possible to pare the number of things TB does down to six, and exclude Damage soak from those six?

An idea: Toxic (X) become more lethal (Damaging) with higher Ratings- what if TB offset the Toxic (X) Quality in some manner?

Ex: In the game I currently run, Toxic (X) does not translate as a penalty to Toughness Tests vs. toxins. Rather, (X) equals the number of additional d5/d10 (debilitating/lethal) Damage the Toxin inflicts, and TB reduces the total Damage inflicted by toxins. Without too much detail, the PC makes a T Test- if successful the additional Damage from toxins is completely ignored, if failed roll for Toxic Damage and reduce it by TB.

Something similar could be done for Falling and Burning...?

Just an idea. The point being the we, the Players and GMs, determine exactly what we do want from TB, rather than going on about what we don't want from it. That might help...?

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is the effect Toughness Bonus as damage reduction has in replacing 'hit points'. I may be in the minority, but I like the way that TB eliminates the need for ever-increasing hit points that many (most?) other games rely on. A WH40KRP character will be lucky to double his starting Wounds over the course of a career; compare that to D&D , where characters can quickly gain many times their starting hit points. With current TB, characters can 'grit their teeth' and ignore very minor injuries, but can still be taken out with one solid hit- which is the effect I want in a game set in the 40Kverse. So, if we eliminate TB as damage soak, as I see it we are either left with PCs that die constantly (= not fun, unless you are playing Paranoia and have a bunch of clones), or we have to replace the damage soak with more hit points, which has all of the disadvantages of TB soak (just as unrealistic, still renders some weapons trivial, allows buff characters to feel nearly invulnerable), so what would be the advantage of that?

Exactly

No system is perfect, and all are designed to make the characters you play, better than normal, remove TB and you are going to have D&D style wound pools, people with 40+ and hey, you just swapped one thing to another thing, that while seemingly different...does exactly the same thing.

I am not hanging on to heroism hard, this is all made up, it is not real, and the idea of the game is to start at the beginning, and progressively become more and more powerful, this is basic RPG concept one, every single game has this concept in some shape or form, EVERY single one.

Now in WH40k RPG we have a slightly different mechanic to allow player characters to advance in the game, other than a boat load of hitpoints, they get a small amount, and cannot increase that small amount very much, meaning that most mid tier weaponry and up, can kill a player in one hit, to stop this and, to not revert to copy every other mmo out there, they have TB to offset low wound pools.

And the point is, it is supposed to be a game where you do not suffer the same fate as the masses, you are supposed to progress and keep progressing and becoming ever more powerful, it is not supposed to be realistic it is FANTASY, and it s designed to be played over months and months and months, it is not a board game rules set designed to be finished inside 2-4hrs.

Also, do you think everyone in the WH40K universe gets recruited by the Inquisition? or that any male can be a Space Marine? or that anyone can become an Assassin Palatine? the chances of you successfully becoming one of them things without the game rules fudging it in your favour are so slim as to be virtually non existent, and it would make such a dull boring game to even attempt it, which brings me back to point one, it is a fantasy game where you get to be something different, and as always the mechanics of any RPG are there to allow that experience to happen

And Space Marines becoming virtually immune to small arms fire, and weak weaponry is fine, because they are NOT designed to be dealing with things using small arms and weak weaponry, SM are supposed to be dealing with the big bad nastys that deal stupid amounts of damage, stop looking at it the wrong way round, SM are not basic troops, they are not even basic level characters, they start at Ascension level, and what does it say on the very first page in Ascension?

Ascension is a book about power, it is about playing characters who wield great and terrible powers.

So, that is the introductory line of a game where rank 1 SM count as being equal to characters from DH, Characters that have managed to survive and reach this point, and are considered to be significantly powerful figures in the 40k universe and the SM is RANK ONE!!! this is where a SM starts.

Comparing a Ferrari to a bottom rung rust bucket, and refusing to factor in anything else other than they are both cars, is only going to lead to some sore heads, no?

DeathWatch is a game that lets you finally get to see the biggest baddest nasty stuff in the WH40k Universe and have a chance of defeating it, of course it is not balanced well compared to DH or OW, it was never supposed to be.

Man, what I first thought was a series of posts in support of PC exceptionalism and PCs having Plot Armor (good things, in my opinion) devolved into an incomprehensible rant talking about massively multiplayer online games, board games, a perplexing car analogy, and something about differing character power levels.

I think what he's saying is to not try representing space marines and regular humans in the same system because they're so far apart (which I agree with), but lord if that isn't a ridiculous post.

Man, what I first thought was a series of posts in support of PC exceptionalism and PCs having Plot Armor (good things, in my opinion) devolved into an incomprehensible rant talking about massively multiplayer online games, board games, a perplexing car analogy, and something about differing character power levels.

I think what he's saying is to not try representing space marines and regular humans in the same system because they're so far apart (which I agree with), but lord if that isn't a ridiculous post.

Thanks I think,

I was talking about RPGs, not MMOS, and if you cannot see how pertinent it is that a RPG ruleset is designed around massive time consuming campaigns and not a simple game you finish in a few hours, I do not know what to say.

TB or massive HP pools are designed to keep the player active and involved in the game, the alternative is get shot a few times, then sit there doing nothing for the next 3-4 game sessions because your character is in intensive care struggling to recover, and my how much fun that would be.

For me having Space Marines and regular humans in the same system is part of the point of a unified system and I'm fine if that means a Space Marine scout and a Vet Storm Trooper are where they meet in power level. I want GMs to be able to throw one at the other and not have the game break down otherwise you can't have the most iconic part of 40k in your game outside of cut scenes unless you play as Space Marines.

Exactly! I want a game that replicates the persistent setting of the original background, where everything has a place and fits and works together like a big puzzle. I want a game that replicates the original rules' universal consistency, where everyone is treated equally as opposed to conflicting novel interpretations skewing the setting in favour of their protagonist-of-the-week. And I want a game that lets us replicate situations and events as they played out in the original material rather than having its rules throw a spanner in our works.

As far as the choice between TB and Hitpoints is concerned - technically, I don't see why the former should be better than the latter. Both are abstracted methods to show us how well a character or creature may cope with damage. The latter just does a much better job at simulating the effect of ongoing heavy punishment. So if I had to choose, I would actually go for hitpoints rather than TB.

That being said, nobody says you can't do away with TB Soak and Hitpoints and still have characters that don't die immediately. Once again, I point to the Inquisitor game, where TB served as a buffer between Critical levels and thus merely cushioned or transformed heavy wounds into something less severe, rather than preventing them entirely - with the effect that even a Space Marine would eventually go down to small arms fire, provided you just hit him often enough. A fitting representation of superior toughness without breaking the game, a player's sense of realism, or the Marines' background, methinks.

There's a reason why GW fluff says they need to call the Guard for help if encountering too many enemies, after all.

I do not understand why you feel you cannot have SM in the same system.

You have a full spectrum of enemies in the WH40k universe, from lowly hab gangers, to Demon princes, from feral servitors, to truly diabolically evil mastermind manipulators.

And I think it is the epitome of boring having one tool for every job, difference = variability = longevity, I think a truly engaging system is not balanced bottom > up, not ever balanced bottom > up, because then you are truly, truly free to explore limitless possibility's, with a system balanced top > down.

Marines should be distinctly different than normal humans, otherwise what is the **** point of them? and I fail to see how having them be distinctly different in scope, power and natural ability makes them mutually exclusive to the same system.

Would a Imp Guardsman expect to survive an encounter with a Ork Warboss one on one? if your answer is yes then you want some mediocre watered down system, where everything is exactly the same as everything else, they just have different names and flavour text to differentiate them, which is what happened to D&D and look where that ended up.

No game designer should ever listen to a niche group of players wanting equality, because these games die when that happens, it becomes boring tedium.

I think D&D 4E did a great job creating an engaging, tactical game, and your characterization as everything being the same in it is completely untrue. I also have no problem with a guardsman distinguishing themself by being a bad enough bad-ss to take down a giant ork because that sounds awesome and players should have the opportunity to be awesome. That doesn't mean I want a mediocre system. Nobody is asking for equality or mediocrity. Speak for yourself and stop mischaracterizing the preferences of others because you don't happen to share them.

I guess you missed the point again.

In DH a guardsman can become badass enough to take down a massive nasty ork, and he can do so because it is a fantasy game with mechanics that allow that to happen, in this case in particular TB.

In TT the chances of a single guardsman killing a mega tough OrkWarboss one on one is for all intents impossible.

I like RPGs because they make the impossible, possible, and they use a variety of mechanics to allow it, my point all along is, it is a fantasy game that is made up so you the player can experience amazing things, so why try and impose reality on it? why attack the very rules that allow the whole premise of the game system to be fulfilled, it makes ZERO sense.

And again what people seem to be failing to grasp is these games have progression in them, when you start out as a fresh rank one n00b, you do not get pitted against very tough or very nasty opponents, eventually you do because....you become more powerful. Space Marines start further along that curve than any other player character type, this is no way shape or form means the game is unbalanced, or that you cannot in fact have Space Marines in the same game system.

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.

No game system is perfect, not a single one, and I have played a considerable amount of them, what keeps me from endless forum complaints about things not being real enough, or posting thread after thread about things I personally do not like and so want changing, is the fact that they are all FANTASY games, it is not supposed to be real, it is not all supposed to make perfect explainable sense, because some human being MADE IT UP. it is a game.

In TT the chances of a single guardsman killing a mega tough OrkWarboss one on one is for all intents impossible.

It isn't impossible. A Guardsman can beat an Ork Warboss 1on1 provided that he has the time to do it and the Warboss misses with all his attacks.

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.)

The game I play most is GURPS, I GM it for a group playing world/dimension-hopping explorers, who do really bizarre stuff sometimes. There's classic fantasy creatures, aliens, magic and sci-fi tech, everything exists somewhere. It all works, there's one unified ruleset yet it does so without TB.
My group has done awesome stuff, defeated dinosaurs ¹ (although someone did die, temporarily) and they never even wore body armour!
And you know the best thing? It all makes sense. You take GURPS calculations and compare them to the real world and it matches quite nicely. There are tons of options to change that, if you need to, and they're all pretty straightforward, because you have a sensible and well-defined starting point.

And that's not to say that you can't do weird stuff. Last time, the idiots players went and magically enhanced some weed before making space brownies.
Three hours (IRL) later we finished the weirdest and probably best session we've had so far. I ditched the rules almost entirely for this, since this was supposed to be weird and not sensible.

So what's the point of my rambling?
It's a hell of a lot easier to do weird stuff (just chuck the rules and let the GM decide) than to make a realistic(~ish) system. Yet, a realistic offers a lot more options, because, thanks to it's internal consistency, it's far more modifiable than one that is based on obscure and nonsensical rules.
Looking at the effects of TB, you have a situation that is worse than D&D3.5, where everyone at least only had high HP. Now you get a lot of things where there's a flat 10% chance to deal 1 point of damage no matter how good you are, and humans that are way too tough for human beings.
And from what I gather, it's even worse for the space marines.


1) Incidentally, a good example for high point characters and lower points in the same game: One on one, the dino just bites them in half, but the group managed to take him down with concentrated fire, before he even got to the second guy.

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.)

The game I play most is GURPS, I GM it for a group playing world/dimension-hopping explorers, who do really bizarre stuff sometimes. There's classic fantasy creatures, aliens, magic and sci-fi tech, everything exists somewhere. It all works, there's one unified ruleset yet it does so without TB.

My group has done awesome stuff, defeated dinosaurs ¹ (although someone did die, temporarily) and they never even wore body armour!

And you know the best thing? It all makes sense. You take GURPS calculations and compare them to the real world and it matches quite nicely. There are tons of options to change that, if you need to, and they're all pretty straightforward, because you have a sensible and well-defined starting point.

And that's not to say that you can't do weird stuff. Last time, the idiots players went and magically enhanced some weed before making space brownies.

Three hours (IRL) later we finished the weirdest and probably best session we've had so far. I ditched the rules almost entirely for this, since this was supposed to be weird and not sensible.

So what's the point of my rambling?

It's a hell of a lot easier to do weird stuff (just chuck the rules and let the GM decide) than to make a realistic(~ish) system. Yet, a realistic offers a lot more options, because, thanks to it's internal consistency, it's far more modifiable than one that is based on obscure and nonsensical rules.

Looking at the effects of TB, you have a situation that is worse than D&D3.5, where everyone at least only had high HP. Now you get a lot of things where there's a flat 10% chance to deal 1 point of damage no matter how good you are, and humans that are way too tough for human beings.

And from what I gather, it's even worse for the space marines.

1) Incidentally, a good example for high point characters and lower points in the same game: One on one, the dino just bites them in half, but the group managed to take him down with concentrated fire, before he even got to the second guy.

I think 40k IS internally consistent, and that is again the point.

Gurps doesnt have TB, great, because that is that system, this system to make it different mechanically does have TB, and everything in the game is factored around that mechanic, combat abilities, weaponry, hit point values, adventures, encounters, all are balanced around a system with TB affecting how damage is dealt with.

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.

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.

Want realistic combat? sure by all means, but go the whole hog with it, no TB, no miraculous healing, lets have people spend weeks doing nothing because there character is in hospital, struggling to recover from being shot or chopped up, and then lets then make them spend the next few sessions in therapy, then we can have some rolls to see if they actually recovered enough to go back into active duty, mhmm this sounds like an amazing game to me, how about you?

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.

Of course if you take out a huge mitigating factor for damage without actually reducing damage, you'll get a lot of fatalities.

The system would have to be balanced AROUND the removal of TB, that's obvious,