Edit- Deleted by author.

What exactly does this add to the game? If the answer is "realism" than all you've done is add needless complication.

I think the ability to dodge these things at all is enough of a nod to realism. If you`ve ever had any of these items thrown at you then you would come to appreciate low velocity as a gloriously relative term,

In most cases it just means you might see it coming but probably still have no time to do anything about it by then.

The fact that you are allowed to dodge single shot weapons and high-velocity weapons at all is.. odd.

That there are no rules for wound infection is also odd, but no one is clamoring for those.

That there are no rules for wound infection is also odd, but no one is clamoring for those.

Well I wouldn't mind them.

Delicious infections.

.

The fact that you are allowed to dodge single shot weapons and high-velocity weapons at all is.. odd.

You're dodging the shooter's aim, not the shot bullet.

This is getting way too complicated. Pretty soon we'll have to start factoring in wind conditions and establishing a -10 penalty to everything for just having woken up. And a separate chapter for Trade (Cook) with detailed discussions of various cooking techniques.

Arguing for realism in a game where gene-engineered supermen chainsaw daemons in half is an exercise in futility. Just go with what's fun and cool to you and enjoy the game.

I would not mind a good Trade (Cook) chapter. I like to cook since i am alive, single, male, not living at my parents and a gourmand (not a gourmet).

Arguing for realism in a game where gene-engineered supermen chainsaw daemons in half is an exercise in futility. Just go with what's fun and cool to you and enjoy the game.

I'm gonna have to use this line in the future.

Arguing for realism in a game where gene-engineered supermen chainsaw daemons in half is an exercise in futility. Just go with what's fun and cool to you and enjoy the game.

People tend to get "Realism" mixed up with Internal Consistancy. When people say realism in this regard, they refer to the reality depicted as part of the in-game universe.

Which is why I hate arguments such as yours.

OP, there's no need to delete your post just because people disagree with your house rule. What you've done is effectively cut off any further comment regarding that proposal.

.

I wonder what the true reason was, then.

I wonder what the true reason was, then.

Because people disagreed with *all* of his house rules

Then it`s up to him to explain his reasons for them, that`s why people critique things.

The issue is deleting it stops the conversation, it is the equivalent of knocking the board game over.

This is getting way too complicated. Pretty soon we'll have to start factoring in...everything...

What exactly does this add to the game? If the answer is "realism" then all you've done is add needless complication.

These two quotes summarize my reasons for deleting my proposals. I interpret both quotes as saying "The 40K RPG d100 game engine utilizes just the right ratio of realism-to- complexity without it becoming needless."

My proposal had nothing to do with "realism", nor was it "needless complication" when one stops to consider the following...

Why did the game designers include a modifier for attempts to hit a running target? Or for a smaller/larger target? Or for being Fatigued? Or for an obscured target? Or for Range? Or for an Unaware target? Or for making a Called Shot? Or for having the advantage of higher ground? Were any of these, and many others besides perhaps included as a nominal nod toward "realism"? Quite possibly. If so, does that not also imply needless rules complexity ? If so, could there perhaps be alternatives? Or, if not, would it really matter whether someone proposed one, two, or ten additional +/- modifiers within the context of a game system where players and GMs alike already spend considerable play time "fishing" for modifiers? Having played the game for up to six years, this fishing most assuredly is not a complication. It's an integral facet of game play.

Why is the negative modifier to hit a running target possessing an AgB of 1 that moves a maximum of 6m the same as that which applies to hitting a running target with an AgB of 5 that moves 30m? Does this not imply the game designers/developers may have, after some consideration, thought it best to simplify the application of this particular negative modifier, rather than add needless rules complexity ? If so, was this choice driven by a system already bloated with needless complexity? Why has the negative modifier for Fatigue been exactly equal when applied to a PC possessing a TB of 3 and an adversary possessing a TB of 8? Simplification?

People tend to get "realism" mixed up with internal consistency.

Absolutely.

So if people question your logic you delete posts?

That question is not exactly a reasonable assessment.

Let's go ahead and consider the broader issues can be summarized with such a naive encapsulation-

Sure. Why? Generally speaking, does that bother you? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. Will you lose something of the 40K RPG gaming experience as a result of my decision? Or are you perhaps genuinely curious about the specifics of my now-deleted proposal? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

To be succinct: based solely upon the absence of constructive criticism, and that vacuum being predominantly filled by reactionary negativity, I now consider my contributions to rules proposals as ultimately resulting in wasted time, on both sides of the equation. Go back and read the trite negativity and reactionary assumptions. Of all of them, only Fgdsfg (seemingly) understood from where my proposal originated and the significance of having the discussion. And, sadly, some participants were sidetracked almost immediately by a brief but very annoying non sequitur (based on incorrect assumptions) regarding "realism."

The lesson learned has not been in vain. For my part, I now am more likely to mull any proposals before responding, at least over the period of time it takes me to smoke a cigarette or take a crap.

Responses are preferred over reactions. I'm sure this holds true for all forum participants. If not, it should.

You can learn from bad houserules. I saw one that was, "For every shot that missed in RT when firing full auto, the group lost -1 PF, to teach them to not spray ammo everywhere"

Education comes in many forms

Two things to remember about House Rules:

1- They are submitted because the author has/had need of it addressing in-game issues

2- They are submitted with the intent of making the game "better"

The word "better" does not necessarily possess an objective definition.

I find it hard to believe that anyone purposefully submits a "bad" House Rule.

I find it hard to believe that anyone purposefully submits a "bad" House Rule.

Probably true, but sometimes house rules are proposed that others have already considered or tested and found to have... impractical side effects.