Curious if any of you have tried this, or the simple logistics of the matter.

Armor and Toughness reduces melee and unarmed damage, but only armor reduces ranged (non Primitive ranged to be clear) unless the toughness is unnatural and then the unnatural counts as one times less for the bonus to reduction.

Example: Unnatural toughness x3 only gives a x2 bonus to ranged damage reduction.

Any comments?

Doesn't this unbalance the relationship between melee and ranged weapons?

What is your reasoning behind the difference?

I've seen half a dozen alternate systems for dealing with the "skin armour" controversy, but this is the first one that differentiates between melee and ranged. I'm curious.

Doesn't this unbalance the relationship between melee and ranged weapons?

What is your reasoning behind the difference?

I've seen half a dozen alternate systems for dealing with the "skin armour" controversy, but this is the first one that differentiates between melee and ranged. I'm curious.

Point 1: I don't know if it really unbalances it, that's why I'm asking.

Point 2: My reasoning is that the people I play with have their own missgivings about Toughness bonus and damage reduction generally wanting certain things to be deadlier than others. Generally we just like combat in the 41st millenium to be legitimately deadly. However I didn't want to do away with an entire statistic. So I just thought that if guns were scarier and more damaging then it might alleviate the issue.

Point 3: I meant no controversy it was honestly just something that popped up in my head and felt I might as well ask if anyone else had thought the same thing. As for originallity thank? I think? I don't know I just felt that a bullet or laser should be scarier than a blade, but still have a blade be scary in it's own right.

Gotcha, thanks - that explains it!

You're certainly not the only one in regards to the role of Toughness Bonus.

I'd say wait a bit and gather more people's opinions about how this would influence the viability of melee weapons as opposed to ranged. Depending on what conclusions you draw, you may opt to stick to your idea, or try out one of the others that also does not dismiss TB entirely but merely shifts its application, thus (possibly) fitting your requirements.

Here are some other currently ongoing discussions about alternatives to the RAW application of TB:

Dark Heresy 2E: TB / AP / Pen

Only War: Why is Toughness body-armour? Should it be changed?

Why is being shot with a pistol worse than being decapitated with a chainsword?

Could you explain the reasoning behind your proposed rules change?

Bad comparison really. A chain sword is barely a melee weapon anyways and I was talking about basic melee, power and chain weapons would reduce the same as a ranged weapon.

It's in house rules for a reason, I just thought it might make combat deadlier because TB soaks so much damage generally that I find it difficult to make players play smart because they are bullet sponges until the first few critical wounds.

I just felt that a bullet generally passes through flesh more easily than a basic melee weapon. Mono, power, chain, anything that makes it not a basically melee weapon would reduce the same. I should have been clearer I admit.

I don't think a person being decapitated with a normal axe would appreciate the difference between a 'normal' and a 'chain' weapon. Both are deadly, the chainaxe more so given its higher damage.

Be careful that you don't make weapons unrealistically deadly (unless you are trying for a video game/cinematic feel).

People normally get shot several times before dying (or the death takes a long time via loss of blood, gradual organ failure, infection). People have been stabbed dozens of times. "Hit = immediately dead" is pretty uncommon in reality. (as opposed to "hit = removed from the fight").

Be careful that you don't make weapons unrealistically deadly (unless you are trying for a video game/cinematic feel).

People normally get shot several times before dying (or the death takes a long time via loss of blood, gradual organ failure, infection). People have been stabbed dozens of times. "Hit = immediately dead" is pretty uncommon in reality. (as opposed to "hit = removed from the fight").

Source?

From what I have read, FBI statistics (old ones by now, mind you) indicate that people often die from the shock of the sudden pain. Examples include a police officer who died from a shot to the foot.

People who survive the initial shock fall into the situation you mention above. People can (under the right circumstances) survive being stabbed multiple times, and bullets hitting limbs are rarely fatal (from tissue damage that is), but there is a shock factor, and it seems to be significant.

Ofcourse, it is also a factor that can be manipulated. People high on uppers (PCP anyone?) have kept going despite surprisingly significant damage, their nervous systems "cushioned" by the drugs. and presumably people expecting pain would be less likely to die from such 'system shock' - as would people accustumed to pain.

The later 2 are guesses from my side though, not actually something I know about.

Let's also keep in mind that the weapons of the 41st millennium may be deadlier than what we currently see on the streets, tho.

Ofcourse, it is also a factor that can be manipulated. People high on uppers (PCP anyone?) have kept going despite surprisingly significant damage, their nervous systems "cushioned" by the drugs. and presumably people expecting pain would be less likely to die from such 'system shock' - as would people accustumed to pain.

The later 2 are guesses from my side though, not actually something I know about.

There are at least "stories" about this, as well as a general theory about how belief and conviction influence body performance, with science currently running tests on athletes.

I occasionally cite these things as the source for a certain Act of Faith from the Sisters of Battle.

Let's also keep in mind that the weapons of the 41st millennium may be deadlier than what we currently see on the streets, tho.

True. Bolters cause tissue-damage like nothing hand-held today.

Let's also keep in mind that the weapons of the 41st millennium may be deadlier than what we currently see on the streets, tho.

Not the stub revolvers and autoguns, presumably.

Source?

Be careful that you don't make weapons unrealistically deadly (unless you are trying for a video game/cinematic feel).

People normally get shot several times before dying (or the death takes a long time via loss of blood, gradual organ failure, infection). People have been stabbed dozens of times. "Hit = immediately dead" is pretty uncommon in reality. (as opposed to "hit = removed from the fight").

From what I have read, FBI statistics (old ones by now, mind you) indicate that people often die from the shock of the sudden pain. Examples include a police officer who died from a shot to the foot.

I don't have a source. I am repeating what I have been told by soldiers.

That and IIRC most casualties from war prior to antibiotics (discounting disease) were from infection. The bullet doesn't kill you. The disease the wound it allows in does.

Not the stub revolvers and autoguns, presumably.

Mhm, that may depend on the calibre and kinetic force of the round.

Not to mention the exact ammunition type. Manstopper rounds seem to be somewhat more common in 40k than they are "now".

There is the idea that 5.56mm FMJ was designed for incapacitation rather than kill because tying up an enemy's medevac capabilities directly hurts their ability as an army...

Not the stub revolvers and autoguns, presumably.

Mhm, that may depend on the calibre and kinetic force of the round.

Not to mention the exact ammunition type. Manstopper rounds seem to be somewhat more common in 40k than they are "now".

There is the idea that 5.56mm FMJ was designed for incapacitation rather than kill because tying up an enemy's medevac capabilities directly hurts their ability as an army...

I have heard that as well.

Actually (as far as I know, I am not a gun-history person) a shot from a musket was considerably more lethal than modern assault-rifle ammo (contra the 40KRPG ). The advantage of modern firearms is much higher rate of fire and accuracy and range, not to mention reload time, not killing power. I'm... actually relatively sure that an arrow is more lethal than a modern bullet, especially when you pull it out again (?). Modern small arms are better for different reasons.I think,

Anyway I don't think the assorted stub weapons are meant to differ appreciably from "generic" early-21st-century equivalents.

If you want to make bolt weapons more dangerous (something I don't think they need frankly -- you can't kill somebody in one shot with them without RF but few people are going to survive two), just increase their damage.

As to the OP, I'm kind of curious how his characters are being bullet sponges. The only way to do that in DH is to have good TB + flak armour or carapace armour, both of which are SUPPOSED to soak up damage from small-arms fire. Assuming he means literal bullets, SP weapons, which do somewhere between 1d10+2 to 1d10+4., usually with Pen 0.

I will be the first to agree that the DH bolter pre-errata (before it was given Tearing) and the plasma gun in all iterations in DH is absurd*, but those aren't bullets.

*a BC/OW plasma gun is scary however. Not much is going to live through a volley of that given halfway-average dice rolls.

Let's also keep in mind that the weapons of the 41st millennium may be deadlier than what we currently see on the streets, tho.

True. Bolters cause tissue-damage like nothing hand-held today.

Too bad the weapon stats don't reflect that - bolter damage is pretty sad IMO.

Let's also keep in mind that the weapons of the 41st millennium may be deadlier than what we currently see on the streets, tho.

True. Bolters cause tissue-damage like nothing hand-held today.

Too bad the weapon stats don't reflect that - bolter damage is pretty sad IMO.

Agreed. I choose to believe this is a game balance issue.

.75 cal grenades fired at any significant velocity pretty much equates a multi-barreled wand of mega death ^TM for unarmoured humans - and most armoured humans as well*. But Instant Death is considered bad game design, so no can do.

And as so often before, I'm reminded of an old friend commenting that more people died during his Blood Bowl games than when he played Necromunda. Fantazy Football vs gangfights with bolters and plascanons.

* Yes, power armour is over rated. Even if the grenade boltershell doesn't penetrate, you'd get pretty banged up inside that armour. Yes, it's presumably cushioned, yes marine physiology and all that, but seriously, a 3+ save?

As to the OP, I'm kind of curious how his characters are being bullet sponges. The only way to do that in DH is to have good TB + flak armour or carapace armour, both of which are SUPPOSED to soak up damage from small-arms fire. Assuming he means literal bullets, SP weapons, which do somewhere between 1d10+2 to 1d10+4., usually with Pen 0.

When I'm a PC our GM lets us get ahold of that stuff too early, I just want to prevent that in case they manage it. I asked one of my players and he basically said "just don't let us get ahold of good armor for awhile." Which is likely what I'll do, but now I'm just generally curious for the idea to continue.

I realize this is the DH forum, but I think you'd find that the BC/OW Righteous Fury rules make them quite a bit more lethal.

Actually even in DH it takes a pretty tough guy to stand up to more than one bolter round. (Average damage 12.5 - TB4 = 8.5, someone with 12 wounds [not on the low end in DH] will be dead in 2 hits likely.)

It is in the situation of being unable to kill anybody in one hit, but able to kill most people in one round.

As to the OP, I'm kind of curious how his characters are being bullet sponges. The only way to do that in DH is to have good TB + flak armour or carapace armour, both of which are SUPPOSED to soak up damage from small-arms fire. Assuming he means literal bullets, SP weapons, which do somewhere between 1d10+2 to 1d10+4., usually with Pen 0.

When I'm a PC our GM lets us get ahold of that stuff too early, I just want to prevent that in case they manage it. I asked one of my players and he basically said "just don't let us get ahold of good armor for awhile." Which is likely what I'll do, but now I'm just generally curious for the idea to continue.

Well Carapace is an elite thing. Not the kind of thing you can do undercover work in.

It's a 4+ armour save in TT, it is meant to be quite good armour. It's supposed to make you hard to injure with small arms. Stormtroopers vs. rebel PDF. Arbites vs. mobs of gangers.

It won't do too much against bolters though.

Problem with that is most of the written adventure stuff doesn't have much of a middle ground on damage, it's either never worry about it since you have decent armor or have fun dying. At least from what I've read.

Problem with that is most of the written adventure stuff doesn't have much of a middle ground on damage, it's either never worry about it since you have decent armor or have fun dying. At least from what I've read.

Which adventures are you thinking of?

There's a real difference in tone and design I think between the Haarlock series and the Gambit one.

Well Carapace is an elite thing. Not the kind of thing you can do undercover work in.

It's a 4+ armour save in TT, it is meant to be quite good armour. It's supposed to make you hard to injure with small arms. Stormtroopers vs. rebel PDF. Arbites vs. mobs of gangers.

It won't do too much against bolters though.

If I recall the TT-rules correctly, it's do exactly as well against bolters as against lasgun. Because of how Penetration in the TT is as on-off as some version of the dodge rules.

Well Carapace is an elite thing. Not the kind of thing you can do undercover work in.

It's a 4+ armour save in TT, it is meant to be quite good armour. It's supposed to make you hard to injure with small arms. Stormtroopers vs. rebel PDF. Arbites vs. mobs of gangers.

It won't do too much against bolters though.

If I recall the TT-rules correctly, it's do exactly as well against bolters as against lasgun. Because of how Penetration in the TT is as on-off as some version of the dodge rules.

Well true. In 40KRP it will suck up 2 points of boltgun damage, which can add up.

Too true