Does the Update3's statement "Low-Tech and Power Melee Weapons" mean:

a.) Low Tech weapons (all)

or

b.) Low Tech weapons melee

?

If a.), this would somehow be cool at it would make bows, muskets, crossbows and the like useable ;D - kind of modern versions with advanced materials

Mono ('monomolecular edge', most likely) upgrades should apply only to weapons which have a cutting edge of some kind.

So crossbow, sure. (Well, the arrows, really.)

Musket, perhaps not, unless it fired a potentially wrapped blade.

Although the problem with a musket may tend not to be the shot itself, but the reload time.

I think it means B) Low-tech Melee weapons.

Though it might be possible to add mono upgrade for arrows.

@ the Inquisitor

Remember that it has been stated that Mono can be applied to blunt weapons and it's usually described as some kind of pneumatic actuator that activates on hit increasing its strength.

I think it means B) Low-tech Melee weapons.

Though it might be possible to add mono upgrade for arrows.

@ the Inquisitor

Remember that it has been stated that Mono can be applied to blunt weapons and it's usually described as some kind of pneumatic actuator that activates on hit increasing its strength.

Strange to keep it called "mono" then. DH1 only referenced the "superfine edges".

But I'd perhaps say that such an upgrade could easily apply to ammunition: though it may fall under a special ammo type, rather than that upgrade itself.

I would LOVE if it was possible for Low-Tech ranged also.

Would open up very interesting new weapon choices.

Maybe it would indeed be enough though to allow Mono for Arrows (bows, crossbows).

I would LOVE if it was possible for Low-Tech ranged also.

Would open up very interesting new weapon choices.

Maybe it would indeed be enough though to allow Mono for Arrows (bows, crossbows).

This is one of those things where it sort of "can't NOT be possible".

If you can Mono a dagger, you can Mono an arrow. Though they may wish to include a listing for relative cost, or a small note like "sensible modifications like a mono-edge or poisoned arrow, though not specifically listed, are usually fine though subject to GM approval".

Would love to see toxic arrows, mono arrows and slighty buffed explosive arrows in the game to make bows an interesting option.

As a GM, I'd vote for being able to Mono Low Tech ranged weapons. I've been wanting Mono Arrows since the Moritat Assassin in Inquisitors handbook. It's easy to justify them too.

Mono pellets in your musket, mono arrows.

Bows should also get Accurate. That'd help

In our current dark heresy we allowed arrows to be mono'd and to put poisons on arrows. Didn't end up being too powerful and meant that the bow welder was a valid option, so would be all for this in the official rules.

I agree you should be able to mono suitable low tech ranged weapons.

Also does the new beta allow mono equivalent for crushing weapons (I do not have the pdf)? I believe this was covered in DH1 in the errata.

Yes, also a "modernized" version of a flint lock pistol would be an interesting thing to wield.

I think it means B) Low-tech Melee weapons.

Though it might be possible to add mono upgrade for arrows.

@ the Inquisitor

Remember that it has been stated that Mono can be applied to blunt weapons and it's usually described as some kind of pneumatic actuator that activates on hit increasing its strength.

Strange to keep it called "mono" then. DH1 only referenced the "superfine edges".

But I'd perhaps say that such an upgrade could easily apply to ammunition: though it may fall under a special ammo type, rather than that upgrade itself.

"Mono" as applying to anything else other than bladed weapons (and some piercing, I suppose) is very weird, but Mono as an upgrade - regardless of the original rationale behind the choice of name - is applicable to any kind of (usually) low-tech melee weapon.

On that basis, it makes perfect sense that "Mono" could be applied to a wide range of low-tech or "primitive" weapons.

I propose that either:

• Make multiple different upgrades that are fluffed in different ways, but applies to different weapons, such as Gravitational Micro-Enhancers for blunt weapons, the Mono for bladed, etc, etc. This would to me be preferable, but there is always limited space.
• Rename Mono to something more fitting, similar to the "Advanced Materials" Armour Upgrade in Rogue Trader (..Hostile Acquisitions, I believe) - and then add a number of different examples of what would constitute this kind of upgrade based on the weapon it's applied to. This might be more elegant in the interest of saving space.

Either of these two solutions would remove the implication that Mono is applicable only to bladed melee weapons (Monomolecular), and would allow you to extend it's functions to also apply more sensibly to ranged weapons - really, any "Primitive" or "Low-Tech" weapon might apply, although in some cases it might be a matter of the Ammunition rather than the weapon itself, which could potentially open up another can of worms.

Just my 2 cents.

I would LOVE if it was possible for Low-Tech ranged also.

Would open up very interesting new weapon choices.

Maybe it would indeed be enough though to allow Mono for Arrows (bows, crossbows).

I'd like to see Mono apply to ranged as well. Primitive ranged weapons are completely pointless without something to make them worthwhile and Mono is a good step toward that.

But I also agree with others to rename "Mono" as this doesnt even suit a lot of melee weapons.

Maybe "advanced materials" or "technically enhanced" or something like that.

I'd argue that since the upgrade is mechanically the same from all the way back in DH1 they should keep the name. Renaming things or keeping the same name but changing the effects of options between games introduces a lot of confusion.

But really it doesn't matter what it's called.

looking at the talent section, the re-naming has reached an immense level anyway compared to DH1

I'm fine with renaming talents/equipment from DH1 as long as the new name makes sense. In this case, Modern Materials/Avanced Construction/something similar makes more sense than Mono for the majority of Low-tech weapons (particularly the ranged ones). I think they kept the name Mono because it's easy to say

I think that Mono should be applicable to low tech ranged weapons, and "modern ammunition" with an availability of Average (one step more common than the Scarce mono upgrade) should be added to the special ammunition section. This ammunition would only be usable with mono ranged weapons, and mono ranged weapons would only use modern ammunition. If you look at the design of modern bows and crossbows, they are substantially different than the longbows and heavy crossbows of the Middle Ages -- it stands to reason that ammunition would not necessarily be compatible between the two.

Modernised is probably a good option, renaming wise.

Modernised is probably a good option, renaming wise.

Totally okay with renaming it 'Mod'

The problem I have with re-naming is old NPCs having to be reworked more.

The problem I have with re-naming is old NPCs having to be reworked more.

This is a small concern for me, but I see how it could be frustrating for people using older sourcebooks.

I do like the term "Mono" for edged weapons.

Blunt weapons are kind of odd, because in theory their damage should be almost directly dependent on your strength.

Basically: Why is a stubber modern but a lead mallet isn't? It's almost entirely the amount of kinetic energy involved, not the weapon itself.

A Primitive quality of 2x your strength bonus might work. (So at 50 strength, blunt weapons are no longer effectively Primitive.)

Although, adding some sort of powered actuator would increase the kinetic energy, it should perhaps not be required, and as well should probably increase the damage--

So there is the possibility of making a blunt upgrade which improves weapon damage and removes the Primitive quality. (Maybe at greater expense than Mono.)

But perhaps they don't wish that level of mechanics for it.

The problem I have with re-naming is old NPCs having to be reworked more.

Do NPC profiles even list weapon upgrades separately? I always just assumed it was incorporated into the statline and that's how I've always done it.

Also, Mono probably wouldn't change at all no matter the name it had; if it says Mono on the profile, it's still mono, and you know what that means, even if the name changes in the next iteration, so I don't see a reason why you'd see a need to rework the NPC's.

Worst-case scenario if you feel the need, all you need to do is to run a Seach-and-Replace of "Mono" to "Adv.Mat." or w/e.

The problem I have with re-naming is old NPCs having to be reworked more.

Do NPC profiles even list weapon upgrades separately? I always just assumed it was incorporated into the statline and that's how I've always done it.

Also, Mono probably wouldn't change at all no matter the name it had; if it says Mono on the profile, it's still mono, and you know what that means, even if the name changes in the next iteration, so I don't see a reason why you'd see a need to rework the NPC's.

Worst-case scenario if you feel the need, all you need to do is to run a Seach-and-Replace of "Mono" to "Adv.Mat." or w/e.

I rather meant re-naming in general. Talent-renaming is the worst.

The problem I have with re-naming is old NPCs having to be reworked more.

Do NPC profiles even list weapon upgrades separately? I always just assumed it was incorporated into the statline and that's how I've always done it.

Also, Mono probably wouldn't change at all no matter the name it had; if it says Mono on the profile, it's still mono, and you know what that means, even if the name changes in the next iteration, so I don't see a reason why you'd see a need to rework the NPC's.

Worst-case scenario if you feel the need, all you need to do is to run a Seach-and-Replace of "Mono" to "Adv.Mat." or w/e.

I rather meant re-naming in general. Talent-renaming is the worst.

Oh, you're going to hate me renaming Common Lore Mundane Lore ....