Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Although not a proposed rules change, in and of itself, this post is directly linked to the rules and background and perhaps why so many people have issues with the rules/stats and their representation within the game - you could argue it fits within 'general' but I find it does relate more to rules and the problems of changing things to fit more in line with the background. I initially started with a massive article I wrote due to insomnia and my brief summation may make less sense as all the examples have been taken out.

On the surface it would seem impossible to have Space Marines as they are fictionally depicted without changing the nature of the entire game as we know it. But why exactly?

40k was initially designed to be a small (ish) skirmish game, and not much has changed since the days of Rogue Trader (statistically speaking). Marines and Guard (or Army) were of the same stats, more or less, then as they are now and weapon profiles have changed little (concerning range and strength anyway - of course rules for armour have, thankfully, adapted since then). The to wound board hasn't changed a single bit but obviously the assault To Hit table has (no longer recognising the existence of the numbers 2 and 6).

Another thing that has not changed is the rule of 10. No statistic can be higher than 10 (although 2nd Ed pushed this just a little on 3 occassions). This left, for representational purposes, what used to be (up until 3rd Ed. anyway) 10 numbers to provide the statistics from everything between a Grot and a Bloodthirster (nothing was stronger than a Bloodthirster - aside from the 3-4 daemon princes). I know 2nd Ed. was ridiculous in terms of basic troop/greater daemon scale - but was it really given the background nature of them? It is more likely the broken close/ranged combat system of 2nd Ed was largely at fault (as a kid I remember Abaddon cutting his way through an entire Tyranid army - it started off with the small things and then bigger things were sent, and then even bigger things - until he single handidly wiped out the entire army - needless to say we were all amazed) - along with the points values and save modifiers that generally reduced the effectiveness of any armour besides Terminator armour etc...

Now the game (and hobby) has grown exponentially and the rule of 10 has had to pack even more in - creating a debilitiating effect to any chance of 'true' background representation. Instead of scaling from a Grot to a Bloodthirster it now has to accomodate from a Grot to a Bio-titan and everything in-between (including a Daemon Primarch) whilst the buffer has always been the humble Guardsman/Human - stubbornly staying at mostly 3's since the games inception.

Therefore it is impossible to have 'true' (if we may define it as such) representation within our games today (at least as stat-lines are concerned) - there simply isn't room for it. This is why rules have been/are being developed for armies to flex more of their character. You could argue that a mighty hero like Marneus Calgar may, proportionally, be able to take out a Bloodthirster and he certainly can (enter mathhammer if it pleases anyone). Is this representative of the Bloodthirster's background as it's written? Not really. If we were to have such background information we'd have to have smaller armies again or adjust our notion of points values (which I think haven't changed much since Rogue Trader in how they are calculated - but I could be very wrong). 5th Ed enables us to field bigger armies (the cynic says making us buy more models the other says but those models are getting more and more awesome) and I tend to find that games of Apocalypse are the only times where I've had proportional fun (to me smaller armies and scale games just don't cut it) and strangely they seem to take little time as well?! Although tidying up is something else...

It would appear that there is a compromise we have in order to have a game where we can take such legendary and powerful units as a Chapter Master and a Bloodthirster to things like Bio-titans and Stompas, compared to the humble Troop choice of today. If we were to ever have anykind of 'true' representation we'd have to have smaller games and go back to the likes of the 2nd Ed. statistical scale or else (shock horror) change the most holy rule of 10 (this one goes up to 11!).

I hope this makes some, if any, sense! I'm tired

It makes sense, and it would be really interesting (for me) to see someone's attempt at remaking 40k in a way that does reflect the fluff. Dow2 does this in a regard (except then Chaos Marines are just as easy to kill....) and gives you that feeling that marines are supposed to have. Literally outnumbers by thousands and still winning.

However, it would be rough on players wanting to play Guard or Tyranid armies as they would need models by the thousands.

An interesting point made

A big issue with this is that the fluff can (and does) contradict itself. It seems that every codex/novel tries to make their race better than everyone else.

another issue is that GW wont be happy if you can buy 10 space marines and never have to buy anything else

In simple terms every codex fluff is a propeganda. The fluff itself is a 'version' of reality.

Well fluff wise 10 marines should be able to take out 100 guardsmen.... but that wont happen..

You all make equally good and valid points (I'm happy I made sense )

Obviously if we were to reflect each codex book's fluff (to which they devote a good 60% + space) into actual rules then some compromises would still have to be made in order to field a large enough and diverse enough force worth taking (as an aside and not making any particular point Abaddon cost the same in 2nd Ed as he does now in 5th - swings and roundabouts anyone?).

A big issue with this is that the fluff can (and does) contradict itself. It seems that every codex/novel tries to make their race better than everyone else.

I think this is the general feeling. However the fluff is repeated and added to with every new codex.I personally don't feel that they try and make each race better than everyone else's, it just seems this way as they are continually trying to push the boundaries of their current rules system with each release (as I've stated the rule of 10 means stats will rarely, if ever change, now. This leaves army specific rules and updated army lists, combinations and things like Unique upgrades which confer additional abilities and rules). We are seeing more and more Codex fluctuations and, of course, all old codex books suffer heavily and look tame in comparison. When the updates are finally released either a new edition comes out or they release another Codex book which pushes things further (it seems Marines are the default choice here) for example the DA codex was the first (I believe anyway) to tidy up the army list and include more dedicated entries and specialist rules to reflect their fluff (in the context of marines). Now the Codex is quite old ideas have developed and changed and many see the Codex as being not as effective as when it was first released.

another issue is that GW won't be happy if you can buy 10 space marines and never have to buy anything else

This stands to reason. Obviously if things were more representative of the fluff then, by default you'd need less models, like you did in 2nd Ed. But then maybe people would be prepared to collect different armies? I don't know I don't think Gyard and Nids would need 1,000's of models - If true fluff, or more true fluff than we have now, were to be introduced I think it would only suit more skirmish level battles (say 1,500 - 2,000pts at MOST). I think 5th Ed. is a great rules set if you want to play Apocalypse.

Personally I see a rules system as a kind of telescope when it comes to representing things 'truthfully'. At the moment we are zoomed out so the rules produce great, visceral large scale battles.

t would be really interesting (for me) to see someone's attempt at remaking 40k in a way that does reflect the fluff

I'm working on it. It's not looking 100% full throttle, uber reflective as of yet. I feel 5th Ed. just doesn't reflect the visceral combat enough in its rules, nor does it reflect the armies strategies in its rules, per se, as Strategy Rating means relatively little. If I'm not that great a player (and ironically I'm not a very serious one, and certainly not a competitive one) that shouldn't mean that my Space Marine captain is as inept as I am.

From a personal perspective the reason I got into the hobby and wanted to start playing games was because of the background. Now this is being more and more adapted and reflected in their miniatures but not, to my own personal satisfaction, in the rules - especially in smaller engagements.

Considering there are people out there that think Marines shouldn't be killed in one shot from a meltagun, yes, it is impossible.

Marines aren't as strong as many people make them out to be. They aren't gods upon the battlefield, merely very capable and durable soldiers, physically above and beyond humanity and yet still very much extremely mortal.

As a general observation I find it funny that whenever the talk falls on "true-scale", both in fluff and stature, the subject of Space Marines is almost always foremost in peoples minds.

One has to realize that in order to maintain any kind of balance, we also have to make the other races true to THEIR fluff.

This would, in turn, lead to all races having extensive skill-lists and enormous stat-lines.
Thus nothing is changed and in order to dial everything back we must" divide by X on both sides of the equation"....leaving us with the stats and skill we have now.

Remember that Genestealers move lightning-fast, Orks can crush a mans skull in his hand and Necrons are basically impervious to all but the most excessive firepower.

Also remember that Orks are harder to kill than Marines.

Considering there are people out there that think Marines shouldn't be killed in one shot from a meltagun, yes, it is impossible.

Really? Well that's just silly considering they turn their targets into molten slag. If a marine did survive he'd look like an amoeba and be just about as effective (unless he's Huron Blackheart).

Marines aren't as strong as many people make them out to be. They aren't gods upon the battlefield, merely very capable and durable soldiers, physically above and beyond humanity and yet still very much extremely mortal.

If the meltagun example is anything to go by you are quite right. I personally see them as tough and durable, well trained, disciplined and exceptional warriors that would be capable of withstanding a couple of minor wounds from small arms fire and certainly no more. Against heavier or high AP weapons (including power weapons and monstrous creatures etc) they'd be just as vulnerable as any Guardsman. As for God's upon the battlefield they would seem that way to most humans, but physically wouldn't be any tougher or stronger than an Ork Nob and certainly not as deadly as an Eldar Exarch in terms of martial ability. IMHO

It's better to think of the fluff in terms of dice rolled than in terms of model characteristics, although I do find it helps to consider characteristics in terms of orders of magnitude rather than a linear scale.

Basically a protagonist always rolls 6s, unless it's integral to the story that he rolls a 1.

As a general observation I find it funny that whenever the talk falls on "true-scale", both in fluff and stature, the subject of Space Marines is almost always foremost in peoples minds.

I think the main reason is because of all the press they've gotten, in terms of fiction and background over the years. Also games like DOW, which are in no way representative of background, and the upcoming Space Marine, have elevated them in the minds of people who would might not be that familiar with all the background itself. If most people outside of the hobby were familiar with anything it would be a Space Marine (the concept of which games like Halo etc have essentially adapted). Marines are the most obvious and universal example.

An Ork may be physically as tough to kill as a Marine but Orks don't wear power armour which would only augment a Marines already exceptional physiology further. Naturally the marine would be outnumbered a hell of a lot...

I agree about escalation, which was my original point. In current game terms its impossible to improve any stat line to most, if not all, 'basic' army choices without escalating others. Obviously if you made marines any tougher to coincide with their fluff then Chaos Marines would be even more tough, Eldar would be far more deadly, Orks would smell even more etc...

All I was saying was the the rule of 10 seems to be at bursting point as I don't think it was originally designed to be able to represent things such as bio-titans (which seems as high as it can go), and that many people have issues with their armies representation compared to the image they have in their minds (be it 'right' or not). I know we have compromise in their representation within the rules in order to play our games and field armies worth fielding.

I would just like to zoom in for smaller games, not so much as Inquisitor, but just to see what would happen that's all...it would not relate to our current acceptance (or not) of them within the present rules...that's all...

It may be easier extend the stats range from 0-10 to 0-20 and introduce a D10 instead of the standard D6
Something like...

WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
Space Marine: 8 8 8 8 2 7 2 16 4+
Ork Boy: 8 4 6 8 2 3 3 13 9+
Guardsman: 5 6 5 5 1 5 14 7+
Eldar Guardian: 6 6 5 5 1 8 1 16 6+
Blood Thirster: 20 - 14 12 7 10 6 20 4+/5++
Wraithlord: 7 7 20 16 4 6 3 20 4+
Chapter Master: 11 10 8 8 4 9 5 18 3+

Then all weapons would need to be changed accordingly...
R S AP Type
Boltgun: 30 9 6 Rapid fire
Shoota: 18 9 7 Assault 3
Catapult: 18 8 7 Assault 3
Lasgun: 30 6 - Rapid fire 2
Krak missile: 60 16 4 Heavy 1
Plasma gun: 30 14 2 Rapid fire, gets hot

Then vehicles...
Rhino: 22 22 18
Falcon: 24 24 18
Raider: 19 19 18
Trukk: 18 18 18
Land raider: 25 25 24
Predator: 25 21 18

Then to hit/would charts... but with a D10 and the introduction of hitting in close combat on 2+ or 6+ this could work.
Then ID, possibly uning the idea mentioned in another thread i think you did.
Theres alot to work out... but for a small skirmish game its not too bad
Essentially most stats are doubled, armour is worked to a rough % of the original pass rate and vehicles are wierd, and i don't know how they would interact with S+D10

Another option is to simply keep the D6... up the stats and simply extend the charts to accomodate a larger variety of values.
Example S:6 wounds T:6 on a 4+, T:7 on a 4+, T:8 on a 5+. 9 on a 5+, 10 on a 5+, 11-12 on a 6+.

Essentially, i have no idea what i'm talking about and spewing out randomness incase it causes inspirtaion.

dayve110 wrote:Essentially, i have no idea what i'm talking about and spewing out randomness incase it causes inspirtaion.

True. Stretching the range of values in the characterstics (that's what they're call, by the way) and using a D10 won't make it any more realistic or a better simulation of the background.

But if stats were to be changed, such as a larger range, then it would more realistic and a better simulation of the background, as multiple unit types would not have the same values for certains stats, so an ork would in fact be stronger than a guardsman and weaker than a space marine (discounting FC, as guard can get that too)

If the stats were changed to imcorporate more values then a D6 might just not cut it anymore and a D10 (or D8, D12, whatever) might be required to use the new values.

So explain to me how an arbitrary number of the strength characteristic of a model is more realistic if it is greater than the arbitrary number of the strength characteristic of another model.

Moreover, why would a D6 not 'cut it'. You are aware that you can get the same range of values out of either, right? Using a differently numbered dice is just as arbitrary and just as representative.

I see the idea behind increasing the statistics within the characteristics ( )

The upside is that it would improve the scope for representation & the downside is that it goes against all our conceptions of the rule of 10 - it's hard to imagine an Ork boy with a WS of what? 6, 7? If such a system were to be adopted it would be totally different to the game as it is and I feel only marginally different overall (it's way too much math for me to determine all the proabilities and all). I have little against the way it fundamentally (at least) plays

although I do find it helps to consider characteristics in terms of orders of magnitude rather than a linear scale.

True, but even so why would something of a WS of 1 be able to hit that of WS10 on a 5+?

To me WS is (or should be) a representation of not only a models ability to hit, but to block, parry, engage multiple opponents with little hindrance etc...In this regard I'm calling for the old Rogue Trader table updated with a system similar to 5th Ed's increased BS. So a model with a WS of 1 (of which their are very few, I can't name one off the top of my head) would hit a model with a WS of 10 on a 6,6. They'd need two sixes in a row to do it. It would be like me, or my mum, trying to hit a Bloodthirster in combat - it would rarely, if ever, happen (thankfully). A standard Marine would need a 6 followed by a 2. Such a change would only make it possible for great characters to be able to hit it, and even not that often, which would coincide with its background resembling its monstrous ability in Close Combat. Of course within the system I'm sketching (I wouldn't say developing as that's far too professional sounding and I'm not) there would be buffers to aid (such as willpower allowing re-rolls, certain orders - perhaps even a fumble system like in 2nd Ed. - all enemies in base contact are at +1 to hit for any 1's rolled to a maximum of 4+ - or something...)

The way I see it is that if we were to increase any scope for additional background material (call it what you will 'realism' 'true background' etc) you'd have to have the current rule of 1-10 to be representative at certain levels of game or introduce new rules, change some charts here and there etc, to allow room for things to be more effective and have representative abilities - not necessarily the statistics of their characteristics.

I am currently working on a D12 system with the help of Lanrak. (Who is awesome, by the way!)

Thanks to him, I've figured out the system that I want to use and it could work very well for 40k.

Here are the stats that are important for my explanation. Also note that the system in question is a D12 system.

Mob: Mobility, how far the model can move in inches
MaM: Mano A Mano, how good the model is in hand to hand combat
ReX: Ranged Expertise, how good the model is at firing ranged weapons
Str: Strength, How strong the model is
Def: Defense, how good the model is at dodging attacks
Arm: Armor, how good the model is at resisting attacks

After figuring out modifiers, take your unit’s ReX. Then, take the difference of your unit’s ReX and the target unit’s Def. You must then roll equal to or under that number. For example, take a unit of trained human soldiers (ReX 10) who are firing at a unit of trained human soldiers (Def 4) who are in Light Cover, which increases the target unit’s defense by 1. But the unit firing also moved and is firing at long range, so it gets -1 ReX. This means that you take the firing unit’s ReX (now 9) and subtract from it the target’s Def (now 5) and you now hit on a 4 or less on a D12.

Resolving Ranged Combat:
After any hits have been scored, take the Strength of the weapon and subtract from it the Armor of the target. So if a Lasgun (Str11) hits an unarmored trained human soldier (Arm3), the difference is 9, so you will hit on a 9 or less.

Close Combat:
As above for ranged combat, except take the difference of MaM and defence, you must roll equal to or under that number. Then same with Strength versus armor.

Armor:
Light Armor: So Orks and Imperial Guardsmen would wear this. +1 Arm
Medium Armor: Most Eldar would wear this, Stormtroopers would wear this. +2 Arm
Heavy Armor: Space Marines would wear this. +3 Arm
Terminator Armor: +5 Arm

The stats for models without armor

Imperial Guardsman: Mob4 MaM10 ReX10 Str 9 Def4 Arm3
Ork: Mob4 MaM12 Rex8 Str 11 Def4 Arm5
Space Marine: Mob4 MaM13 ReX13 Str13 Def4 Arm6

So with Heavy Armor (Powered Armor) a Space Marine would be Armor 9, meaning that a lasgun would wound on a 2 or less. A 16% chance of damage. Guardsmen without close combat weapons (+1 Str) won't even be able to wound a Space Marine in powered armor! With Terminator Armor, a Space Marine is armor 11, meaning that Lasguns cannot wound a Terminator.

The beauty of this system is that the sky is the limit. You could have a weapon that is Str 19 (perhaps a lascannon). It would destroy everything with the exception of models in Terminator armor immediately.

The beauty of this system is that the sky is the limit. You could have a weapon that is Str 19 (perhaps a lascannon). It would destroy everything with the exception of models in Terminator armor immediately.

Interesting...

I wasn't looking to go into that much detail exactly but that sounds like it would be a good way to go. All power to you!

The immediate (but not in any way terminal) trouble I see with adopting such a system is that people would have to get used to different values and what they mean. It sounds like, based on your examples, it would be a great way to adopt 'true' background simply by altering the length of probability - but would be more complicated and longer to play (I'm a little drowsy on medication at the moment so the stats hurt my brain a little Sorry).

My personal conundrum that I've set myself is how do we take the relatively simple game mechanics of 5th Ed and stretch them to offer more detail that's representative of some background elements, if not making them 'all out' (if we can at all). I just want a little more detail in my games. For example why would an armoured unit behind cover either get one or the other save? They wouldn't. They'd get both. Simply by doing this you've made Marines, Aspect Warriors, Daemons etc, more resilient to small arms fire - balance this out with a few tactical orders and an Cover Sv modifier for low AP weapons (reducing cover saves and still ignoring their armour) would still make them vulnerable to fire that has a right to (plasma weapons, meltaguns, sniper rifles etc) I know armies like Guard and Orks may suffer - in the case of Orks you aren't going to be shooting them anyway and in the case of Guard you'd get more shots through all the modified weapon abilities as well as potentially through Orders, and all the Ordnance blast weapons they have anyway...or something like this...

warspawned wrote:

The beauty of this system is that the sky is the limit. You could have a weapon that is Str 19 (perhaps a lascannon). It would destroy everything with the exception of models in Terminator armor immediately.

Interesting...

I wasn't looking to go into that much detail exactly but that sounds like it would be a good way to go. All power to you!

The immediate (but not in any way terminal) trouble I see with adopting such a system is that people would have to get used to different values and what they mean. It sounds like, based on your examples, it would be a great way to adopt 'true' background simply by altering the length of probability - but would be more complicated and longer to play (I'm a little drowsy on medication at the moment so the stats hurt my brain a little Sorry).

It's all good brosef. I was browsing through the proposed rules forum and I thought that you had posted an interesting conundrum.

The game that I am designing that uses this system is actually fairly simplistic. It takes a little while to get used to (but then again, any system does) but it is actually in many ways easier to get than 40k. You don't have to memorize "to-hit" rolls, no memorizing a "close combat WS vs WS" table, nothing. Just some fairly simple subtraction really.

The game that I am creating has higher strength value for the weapons though. For example, a Bolter is Str 14. This means that against an unarmored individual (Arm3), a bolter will wound on an 11 or less. Yep. Ridiculous, right? Of course, the one balancing factor is that most models have 2 or more wounds and the bolter does D4 wounds so there's still a 25% chance of the model not being outright killed.
But then there are some weapons like the Multilaser, which is Str 17 and does D6 wounds per hit! So yeah, you auto-wound unarmored models and then have a 84% chance of killing them. Pretty brutal. Of course, it's much harder to hit (due to modifiers and whatnot) but when the model gets hit, unless it's wearing some really tough armor it's gonna go down fast.

That being said, if 40k was adapted to this style of system I don't think that would be a bad thing; people would have to get used to it and it would be a bit of a shell-shock at first but in the end they would get used to it. The one thing going against this system for use in 40k is that you have to have a good amount of d12s. I recommend about 8 for the game I am creating. (It has about 10-20 models per side) With 40k there are tons of models and attacks per side so this wouldn't work as well unless brought down to the skirmish level again.

All good idea's, these. But then, if implemented, they wouldn't really be 40k anymore, would they? It'd essentially be a new game born off the back of an older one.

Ed: They'd be create rules for an updated a la inquisitor game, though!

"Orks wouldn't be firing anyways."?
The irony is that until 5th, Orks have had a solid (abeit less reliable) shooting capability.

I'd say they still do.

the_ferrett wrote:"Orks wouldn't be firing anyways."?
The irony is that until 5th, Orks have had a solid (abeit less reliable) shooting capability.

UNTIL 5th?

Ork shooty builds are still quite good. Actually, grot batteries are really easy to underestimate, but they can produce some amazing results given how cheap they are.

warspawned wrote:An Ork may be physically as tough to kill as a Marine but Orks don't wear power armour which would only augment a Marines already exceptional physiology further.

Astartes power armor does not increase a Marine's biological toughness. There's only a few real life support stuff it has from the fluff I've read-- the first and the only one that matters for a TT length battle is that it is environmentally sealed. But then, Inquisitorial and Sororitas power armor are too. And some of the upper levels of civilian power armor.

The others are nutrient recycling, and the helmet grants resistance to flash and stun effects (IE resistance to a flashbang, for example), along with slightly better senses. No other life support function has been mentioned. None of these would raise a Marine's T value regardless of if it was a d6, or d10, or even a d100 system. Their improved toughness is purely biological. Not technological.

Their improved toughness is purely biological. Not technological.

Sigh...I'm not equating this to any representative effect in the game (as I've come to realise it would be impossible). I'm just saying that hitting a marine in power armour with your fist would hurt more than hitting an Ork with little to no armour. Generally speaking it would be tougher to kill a Marine on account of his armour (represented by the save) - the weight of which would (technically) boost his own physical strength (I concede perhaps physiology was the wrong word and I apologise) - although this, also, cannot be represented. An Ork isn't necessarily tougher to kill than a Marine per se (on account of the armour the marine is wearing). That's all...background wise an Ork may still be able to 'bite back' in combat, even if severely wounded (kind of like 'the Black Knight' - "It's only a flesh wound!") but this, also, cannot be represented...although I wouldn't mind a rule which gave Orks x hits at Str 3 AP - if they were taken as casualties, before they were removed (unless they got chopped by power weapons and the like)...'Oi ya git! I ain't done wiv ya' yet!' or something like that...

Ork shooty builds are still quite good. Actually, grot batteries are really easy to underestimate, but they can produce some amazing results given how cheap they are.

True. I fielded 100 in an Apocalypse game and they took out any smallish units stupid enough to get in their way

... which is armor, not toughness.

Keep in mind that you are talking on a Warhammer 40,000 board. In the 40k setting, when referring to the attributes of various factions' soldiers, "Toughness" refers to purely biological toughness. NOT armor. This will keep people from confusing what you are saying. So a Marine in power armor isn't "tougher", he's "better armored". Because "tougher" represents having a higher toughness value in the lingo of this setting.

*shrug* Semantics, but rather important when you are discussing adding in new rules or changing in old ones.

"Toughness" refers to purely biological toughness. NOT armor. This will keep people from confusing what you are saying.

I accept. I think any confusion I have given was due to my abstract idea of flirting with armour adding to toughness somehow (within a more detailed skirmish game base) - although this idea would be (and is) completely lame and stupid...sorry...

Well to be fair, in the Dark Heresy roleplaying game armor and toughness have roughly the same effect, except it's much easier to increase one's armor value (if one has the money) than one's toughness bonus. It's also easier to bypass armor than toughness, as well (quite a few more things have armor penetration values than ignore toughness).

Well to be fair, in the Dark Heresy roleplaying game armor and toughness have roughly the same effect, except it's much easier to increase one's armor value (if one has the money) than one's toughness bonus. It's also easier to bypass armor than toughness, as well (quite a few more things have armor penetration values than ignore toughness).

I should get the rules. I've 'found' bits and pieces on the Internet. As a general question why would it be harder to ignore toughness than armour (other than with poisoned weapons)? If I can cut though steel what chance does flesh have? Maybe the two are symptomatic. Of course if this was taken to the max there'd be no need for Toughness at all. For example a Bolter would kill just about any (man sized) target it hit and penetrated (if it beat their armour what chance would their body have) - as it would explode inside them creating a lot of mess...again I think it's impossible to introduce such a direct effect within the game as any man-sized creature would be KIA or severely wounded by the majority of weapons anyway. I don't know if a bolter does more damage in Dark Heresy than a Shuriken catapult say? Anyway this is all conjecture on my part...

I'll take this to PMs. Suffice it to say it's easier to understand in context.