As Lynata is well aware from our debates in the only war forum, I'm a fan of ditching toughness soak entirely! So that would be my starting point. Maybe unnatural toughness would have some effect (Because it's unnatural) but I feel this solution works without rewriting large portions of the existing system.

I like to think you'd attack a Carnifex with everything you got!

Orbital strikes with Lances come to mind!

Since the watchword for Beta2 is 'compatibility' with the rest of the WH40KRP line, I don't think any drastic changes will be approved by FFG .

One minor tweak that doesn't 'monkey-wrench' compatibility that could possibly get approved (someone else suggested this a while back, but I'm too lazy to look it up to give proper credit) would be to add a rule that TB alone cannot reduce damage to 0; hence if you can overcome Armour, you will always be doing at least 1 damage.

I suppose Unnatural Toughness should get some kind of special modifier to this rule; maybe say that the damage that exceeds Armour and does not equal or exceed the TB 'additive' is completely negated. Hence a Space Marine (Unnatural Toughness +4 in the BC / OW system) must have at least 4 points of damage get past Armour to take the minimum 1 Wound.

Technically, one game using a different injury model than another does not destroy backwards compatibility in terms of just yanking stuff out of other books. It only affects how gritty (or not) combat would be in that one game. Thus, the only important thing would be to make sure that weapon and/or character profiles can be "adopted" flawlessly - or (for example if you intend to remove Wounds) that you at least provide a matrix for quick and easy conversion.

Total compatibility (in that every game uses the same rules) has never been a concern in the previous product lines, and the fact that this is called "Dark Heresy 2nd Edition" rather than "Wh40k RPG 2nd Edition" tells me that this tradition will continue.

tl;dr: I would compare an alternate injury model to the evolved Psyker rules, DW's Squad Modes, or OW's Comrades. They all result in a different gameplay experience, but you can still borrow stuff from the other books if you really want to.

Not that I think our debate here would have much effect on the official product, mind you.

I still like it because it's great inspiration for houserules.

I like my TB soak, and I've yet to see a character feeling truly invulnerable because of it. I honestly don't get people opposing it so strongly.

I like my TB soak, and I've yet to see a character feeling truly invulnerable because of it. I honestly don't get people opposing it so strongly.

I like TB to soak too, but i do understand their opinions.

In my case, i would make Felling (x) come back to some weapons, reducing the TB on the target by 1-x? maybe have some special ammo for that.

Also, the rule for Proven (DW) and Razor Sharp have some appereance? Maybe forget about Felling.

Let proven be there, and let Razor Sharp reduce the toughness bonus instead? (i dislike the word Felling, dunno why )

I'm considering a house-rule where if damage beats armour+1/2 TB a wound is still taken, but doesn't cause any wound effects (this is using the narrative wounds from the original beta, not the Only Heresy HP system)

I like my TB soak, and I've yet to see a character feeling truly invulnerable because of it. I honestly don't get people opposing it so strongly.

For me, TB soak did not become a big issue until you got into Unnatural stats. That made me start thinking why it was so. What I came to was that TB soak was an unnecessary complication. Without it characters were a little bit more vulnerable but nobody was invincible. I suppose an argument for Unnatural toughness could be made as soak since the felling quality directly counters it. For normal humans it didn't break the system either way but without it there was one less calculation. THAT was most welcome!

^ I'm in the same boat - although my dislike for TB now also extends to "normal" Toughness in high-level games. The 3 or 4 points of TB soak are no problem in the average game when the characters are still somewhat new, but when over time the players manage to get their hands on more powerful armour (as they should, if it befits the situation and their background), the total resilience just climbs too high for my taste. A large number of guns become pea shooters and it just doesn't "feel right" anymore (-> subjective perception and interpretation of "40k style").

Ask yourselves: How many threads did we see over the years from GMs complaining about their group having become too tough and powerful, and asking for advice how to deal with this?

Ultimately, I think it's a matter of both taste and personal experiences. I would not expect everyone to have the same opinion, especially on a "game changer" like this. It's kind of like asking people what genre of movies is better.

TB soak is a problem for me because an Arbite for instance with 40 T and carapace armour won't take any damage from half of the weapons in the armoury! At least in DH1 that is.

After all of this is said and done, wouldn't it be simpler just to make Penetration count against the TB?

I do like the Felling idea, however.

And 1d10+70?

Daaaamn, that's just insane. Why use the die at all?

Just throwing in that we could use half Toughness bonus for arms, legs and head keeping full soak for body.

I like my TB soak, and I've yet to see a character feeling truly invulnerable because of it. I honestly don't get people opposing it so strongly.

Lasguns are supposed to be the default weapon of the setting. If your PCs are immune to lasguns, then you have to either accept that a lot of fights will be utter cakewalks, or have them go up exclusively against the best-equipped enemies around.

After all of this is said and done, wouldn't it be simpler just to make Penetration count against the TB?

I do like the Felling idea, however.

And 1d10+70?

Daaaamn, that's just insane. Why use the die at all?

Yeah, I don't see how the difference between 71 and 80 would ever matter. That's a silly system.

I wouldn't mind having Penetration count against TB- weapons that penetrate armor seem like they should also penetrate toughness. (Marbo can shrug off lasgun rounds, but a hellgun really hurts!).

Alternatively, what are some other ways that toughness could reduce damage without being armor? What about something like, say, offering a Toughness test to only take half damage after armor? Maybe make it a flat half, with a talent/trait to make it a quarter for Really Tough enemies?

Alternatively, what are some other ways that toughness could reduce damage without being armor? What about something like, say, offering a Toughness test to only take half damage after armor? Maybe make it a flat half, with a talent/trait to make it a quarter for Really Tough enemies?

A test? That sounds like a lot of additional dice rolling to me - it'd slow down combat considerably, especially if you do this for every single hit. Imagine this with burst or auto fire salvos!

It'd work nicely in a PC game where this stuff is calculated in the background, but at the table ... pheww.

We probably need a shared document or a wiki for all the alternative solutions so far - I swear I've heard at least half a dozen by now.

Alternatively, what are some other ways that toughness could reduce damage without being armor? What about something like, say, offering a Toughness test to only take half damage after armor? Maybe make it a flat half, with a talent/trait to make it a quarter for Really Tough enemies?

A test? That sounds like a lot of additional dice rolling to me - it'd slow down combat considerably, especially if you do this for every single hit. Imagine this with burst or auto fire salvos!

It'd work nicely in a PC game where this stuff is calculated in the background, but at the table ... pheww.

We probably need a shared document or a wiki for all the alternative solutions so far - I swear I've heard at least half a dozen by now.

Hear, hear!

I must say, though, that I believe most of them to be, although cool, unnecessarily complex.

Even if Pen counts against TB, it's still the same as adding more damage to the weapon. Why does the system have to be more complicated than it needs to be?

I must say, though, that I believe most of them to be, although cool, unnecessarily complex.

I now think mine was unnecessarily complex at first, too - I only later noticed that I could make it work more intuitive with a simple shift in application. So easy, yet for months I just did not see that solution... >_<

Even if Pen counts against TB, it's still the same as adding more damage to the weapon. Why does the system have to be more complicated than it needs to be?

I can see the reasoning behind it ... making some weapons better against armour than others. But I'm not sure anymore as to whether it was really necessary to give every single weapon its own Pen - given that this Pen is usually lower than the armour of most opponents. A single but rare "halves target armour" weapon trait sounds like it would have been sufficient.

In DH1 it also led to some really strange effects as soon as you were shooting at what few unarmoured targets you encountered. Suddenly, that bolter felt just like a lasgun. Okay, okay, so it's got the "X" damage code, but given that this applied only once you actually apply Crits ... (one more reason for why I think damage ought to go into Crit right away)

In DH1 it also led to some really strange effects as soon as you were shooting at what few unarmoured targets you encountered. Suddenly, that bolter felt just like a lasgun. Okay, okay, so it's got the "X" damage code, but given that this applied only once you actually apply Crits ... (one more reason for why I think damage ought to go into Crit right away)

I do that for mooks... er, sorry, "minions". My players LOVE it.

Armour could stand to be a bit more granular. Not overly complex, mind, just a bit more granularity.

I've been working up something based on this idea...

First, TB does not "soak" Damage.

Next, I divided armour types into three simple categories- Light, Medium, and Heavy.

Next, normal clothing/coveralls/robes (Light Armour) does indeed provide some very minor protections from certain few Damage Types. Based on some lengthy research and using the Damage Types E, I, R, and X, and applying each individual Type in broad definition (ex: a sword and a poniard would be used in distinctly different ways- the sword with its edge and the poniard with its tip- but both weapons would be considered Type R) wearing clothing is better than being naked in a fight.

Next, based on the research from above and using current AP values as a basis, some Armour provides varying degrees of protection from certain Damage Types, in some cases more, less in others. Ex: generally speaking, clothing provides zero effective protection versus Type X.

Next, I decided that some Armour can stack- this took a lot of time and research.

Each Armour either possesses a static AP value (listed as X or X/X; think of X as a Carapace Breastplate, having one AP value, and think of X/X as a Flak Coat, having its "standard" AP value and the second value being versus Blast*) or a + AP value. I won't go into detail here (otherwise I could simply copy/paste my work and then spend wall of text explaining/justifying), but suffice it to say that not all Armour can stack, and there are encumbrance issues with stacked Armour.

Based on my work from all of the above, each Location then has varying degrees of protection from each of the four Damage Types...

Arms: __ vs E, __ vs I, __ vs R, __ vs X

Lastly, we use an Inquisitor-esque Injury mechanic (TB "buffer" before going directly to injury effects/criticals).

Play testing has resulted in very minor tweaks to weapons, mostly to Special Weapon Qualities, but weapon stats themselves have otherwise remained unaltered.

YMMV

*Blast- Blast is a Special Weapon Quality. Flak currently is the only Armour that provides special protection versus a SWQ. This is inconsistent with the remainder of the mechanics. Blast affects an AoE, Damage Type X affects AP and injury. Therefor, shouldn't Flak (RAW) be 5/6 versus Damage Type X?

Things.

Altough it would be fairly realistic, I think having 4 different AP values for each set of armour and piece would be too complex for most players. Also would make combat even slower.

Things.

Altough it would be fairly realistic, I think having 4 different AP values for each set of armour and piece would be too complex for most players. Also would make combat even slower.

It's really not all that complex.

Mind you, I've only given a broad overview of what we're doing, so you don't have the entire mechanic to hand to see what I mean. As far as slowing combat down, anyone who used the advanced healing rules from The Inquisitor's Handbook (like our group) wouldn't even notice. As GM, I tell the Player "You take 7 E, Pen 2 to your Right Arm." The Player goes straight to Right Arm, looks at E, reduces AP by 2, and applies the Damage. There's nothing to record unless Armour Condition is reduced, which is a fairly rare occurrence. Even then, Condition (AP value) is reduced equally across the Damage Type APs.

While on the subject...

Many times when I see someone bemoaning all the record keeping required on a Character sheet I can't help but think "Then why have a Character sheet in the first place, if not to record things as they happen during game play?" This isn't directed specifically to you, Eisenhorn. You just prompted me to say something.

As far as being too complex for most Players? Nah. Seriously. Consider some weapons have two or more SWQs, that many PCs have two or more Talents that affect their WS/BS, Damage output or Pen, that modifiers for range and size and movement and RoF need to be accounted for; if my proposal is "too complex" then perhaps a change of game is in order instead of a change to a simpleton's game system. Tiddlywinks, perhaps?