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.

SpaceRatCatcher wrote:

Which is exactly what happened with a low damage roll in first edition.

And that matters how? I'm not defending the old edition (something a few of you seem to be struggling to grasp) I'm pointing out that this is a serious flaw in this edition.

Manchu, if range isn't part of their 'vision' of how a combat system with firearms deals with damage, I don't even know what to say to that. It's one of the most idiotic things I've heard in this yet, though sadly, may in fact be correct.

Hold up, B. It's not that range isn't involved at all. You can take penalties for BS checks beyond your weapon's range, etc. It's just that you don't take damage penalties for being at long range -- or damage bonuses for being at point blank, so far as I can tell.

Also, DoS can matter on the wound effect table. For example, you can immobilize your target on a leg shot with an energy-based weapon rolling as low as 7, so long as you get DoS higher than the target's WPb.

 Manchu wrote:
It's just that you don't take damage penalties for being at long range -- or damage bonuses for being at point blank, so far as I can tell..

Or for aiming for a weak spot. Here's the thing: the way the wound tables are set up, they determine how you hit certain parts of the body more or less regardless of your actual ballistics roll. Basically it goes back and says 'Yes, we know you rolled BS well enough to hit a dime at 2 kicks, but the wound tables says you just gazed his head at 20 feet'.

The wound tables as written create a disjunction between what would logically happen and what happens in game,

No, you still don't get the rules.

Your BS check initially only tells you two things:

- Did your attack hit at all? (Pass/Fail)
- How many hits did you get? (DoS up to RoA)

It does not tell you how much more accurately you shot than necessary as a function of increasing damage output.

Next you roll damage based on the weapon, not the BS check result. At this point, DoS on the BS check don't matter. The target's Defence Value is subtracted from the damage and modified by +5/+10 for wounds the target took on prior attacks.

You use that number to look up what your hits do to the target. At that point, DoS can impact how good of a hit you got in terms of applying conditions to the target.

 Manchu wrote:
No, you still don't get the rules.

Your BS check initially only tells you two things:

- Did your attack hit at all? (Pass/Fail)
- How many hits did you get? (DoS up to RoA)

It does not tell you how much more accurately you shot than necessary as a function of increasing damage output.

No, I understand the RAW. I'm just telling you that the way it works is illogical.

It's called 'Ballistic Skill' and it's description states it's how skilled you are at accurately firing ranged weapons.

 Manchu wrote:

Next you roll damage based on the weapon, not the BS check result. At this point, DoS on the BS check don't matter. The target's Defence Value is subtracted from the damage and modified by +5/+10 for wounds the target took on prior attacks.

You use that number to look up what your hits do to the target. At that point, DoS can impact how good of a hit you got, in terms of applying conditions to the target.

Manchu, I got that. What I'm saying is, like your insistence about Medicae being Agility based, is that this is pants on head mentally impaired game design. Let me summarize: Aiming the gun only counts up until the moment you hit a (most likely) man sized target,but what you hit has nothing to do with your ability to aim at a target, but rather random chance. In fact, regardless of your stat that dictates how well you can aim a gun, you may in fact functionally miss, but the next time you fire and hit the same body part, the magic damage fairy will waive her wand and you'll score a better hit, again, regardless of your ability to aim.

So, tell me how that makes sense, Manchu? How's that good game design, or in the least bit logical?

The BS check determines whether you hit a target in combat with a ranged attack. Your BS skill describes how likely that is to happen. The DoS on the check determines how many hits you made with that attack and sometimes whether any of those hits apply conditions to the target.

I don't see how you've demonstrated that these are illogical mechanics.

There are two ways to aim in DH2E. You can concentrate on improving your chances to hit your target generally with Aim or you can concentrate on trying to hit a specific part of your target with Called Shot.

There is no magic damage fairy. The wound mechanic simulates a target being worse off when he has already taken hits. This actually addresses a big problem with HP bubble games, where a guy with 1 HP is just as good as a guy with full HP: "I'm fine I'm fine I'm fine I'm dead."

Ugh. DH1E did a bunch of stuff that other games already did but in a needlessly complicated way. The HP bubble issue is a great example. DH2E is by no means "elegant" (except as compared to FFG's previous 40k RPGs) but at least it does something differently.

 Manchu wrote:
The BS check determines how often you can hit a target in combat with a ranged attack. The DoS on the check determines how many hits you made with that attack and sometimes whether any of those hits apply conditions to the target.

I don't see how you've demonstrated that these are illogical mechanics.

Because as anyone who has ever shot at a living, moving target will tell you, you are not aiming at 'the man' you are aiming the gun at a specific part of their body, whatever that part might be. That's why 'Called Shot' makes no sense as a separate action as it's part of what someone does when they aim at a target. Because you don't aim at 'a man' you aim at his torso, or his head, etc. The only time you just point the gun in their general direction is with a shotgun, or when doing a 'spray and pray'.

Since the game system makes it very clear that your ability to hit a target is your BS, having it have no impact on if you connect solidly with the target or just wing it makes no sense. Because shot placement is part and parcel with your ability to aim at a target.

I'm not going to get into a "but in real life" argument over a 40k game.

Back to the rules, the BS check when making an attack determines whether you HIT the target. That's what it's for. If you think it's for something else or more then you need to read the rules more closely.

A hit can be solid or it can be a graze. Those are both kinds of hits. As I have explained, the BS check can circle back in to also help determine how good of a shot you got -- it's just not as a matter of the BS check itself. Instead, it's a matter of DoS compared against one of the target's stats, such as WPb.

 Manchu wrote:
I'm not going to get into a "but in real life" argument over a 40k game.

Well,if you want to get in a 40k argument over a 40k game I can do that too. How about those changes to blanks in this?

 Manchu wrote:

Back to the rules, the BS check when making an attack determines whether you HIT the target. That's what it's for. If you think it's for something else or more then you need to read the rules more closely.

Manchu, the Lord once said that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. You keep going back to what the rules say, and not what they're supposed to do. A combat system is supposed to create an abstraction of combat that at least follows some sort of logic.

Not allowing the stat that dictates how good a shot you are determine how solidly you hit a target, thus dealing damage, makes no sense.

It's doesn't even make 40k sense.

I've got to say Baron- reading both sides of this carefully, I'm with Manchu.

These mechanics seem to portray ranged combat well. You can either hit generally, or use called shot to show how much of a marksman you are by aiming for a specific part.
In my OTC training, we generally just aimed for the torso, as its the biggest bit. A general hit was sufficient in this regard, and I think these mechanics seem to represent that.

Damage being then calculated on the weapon also seems to be intelligent game design. A rifle is a rifle after all. You want to do more damage by aiming your weapon at a weak spot? Use Called Shot to aim at where the Defense Value is lowest.

More importantly, this system seems easy to pick up and play- IMO vital for ensuring a games success.

Now I may be reading it incorrectly, and I bow to heads wiser than mine, but I personally don't see the problem.

Same here.

The Baron seems determined to find fault with everything, and seems to really just want to argue, no matter what.

 Alpharius wrote:
Same here.

The Baron seems determined to find fault with everything, and seems to really just want to argue, no matter what.

You guys can keep pretending that if you like, but it comes off as base denial when there are evidently other people who agree with some or all of his points.

 CadianXV wrote:

Damage being then calculated on the weapon also seems to be intelligent game design. A rifle is a rifle after all. You want to do more damage by aiming your weapon at a weak spot? Use Called Shot to aim at where the Defense Value is lowest.

As pointed out earlier, you cannot Aim, and called shot, and fire a rifle. That costs 5 action points. You only get 4. There are things I do like about this system, but combat is not one of them.

 Alpharius wrote:

The Baron seems determined to find fault with everything, and seems to really just want to argue, no matter what.

Fair enough. I want you though to just stop,and consider one thing:

Many of you have watched the little dance we do around here, with me taking the role of Mr Negative and HBMC taking the role of Mr Positive.

Generally I have a good time needling him. I don't see it as trolling, per se, because I have a point, from my point of view, but he takes defending it so seriously that I enjoy the fight.

I'm not enjoying this.

Do you know why?

*holds up arms in an expansive gesture. Out in the distance there are only crickets*

He has not had much to say about this new edition, and frankly what he has had to say was pretty negative. He's been playing it for (IIRC) almost a year now, and that is far more telling to me than even manchu's most impassioned defense of it. Because I know that he really believes in these products that he helps write and playtest. He's a good writer, despite our disagreements on how granular a rule system should be, probably better than FFG deserves.

So I know when he says says he's not convinced that this is good, and argues that there are problems with it, I know I can take that to the bank.

And that makes me angry.

Because I look around and I see just how many of you are willing to just accept whatever they give you like it's manna from heaven.

You sit here and get gak on by GW, and FFG, and whoever else gets a WHFB/40k License and never DO anything about it, no matter how many Gotos and Wards and Finecasts they spew. Some idiots will even get up and try and defend it, even if all they can say it's 'Well, it's 40k!' like it explains every idiotic design decision, legal abuse, ultra price hike, and gak product they choose to inflict on you, because they know you'll buy it regardless of how gak it is, and insist that anyone who tries to stop you or point out the faults with this is just a 'hater'.

So you can call me 'hater', because I've had enough. I've had enough of gak products. I've had enough of absurd price hikes. I've had enough of pay 'beta' products being released by companies looking to give players the illusion of involvement without it's substance, all while padding their wallets. I'm tired of companies declaring they own the copyright on little plastic men and armor throughout history, because they think they can be that arrogant and get away with it.

And until more players start looking critically at GW, FFG, and their products, and not just buying every piece of crap that comes along, there never will be improvement.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

You guys can keep pretending that if you like, but it comes off as base denial when there are evidently other people who agree with some or all of his points.

Quite a few of them to read through most RPG sites and the official forums atm. However, that does not make me right. It just means that there are a lot of people who share my reservations about this.

I do hear you on that one Baron - and it does make me a bit nervous seeing H.B.M.C. not so optimistic and...


...agreeing with you!

All kidding aside - yes, troubling.

I'll reserve judgement until the final product, but it is not off to the greatest start!

 Alpharius wrote:
I do hear you on that one Baron - and it does make me a bit nervous seeing H.B.M.C. not so optimistic and...


...agreeing with you!

All kidding aside - yes, troubling.

I'll reserve judgement until the final product, but it is not off to the greatest start!

Might want to start checking for those Horsemen riding through the sky.


Objectively, HBMC and I agree because we both feel that if there is going to be change, that change needs to be a clear improvement that most players new and old can get behind. The new character generation system for example is quite good and well done, though there are a few things I don't like about it on the whole, it's solid. I'm not a fan of skill trees, but that's not a major issue for me. The problem I have is change for change sake. The old combat system for DH is not perfect by any means. It needed a drastic overhaul. However, this 'entire' replacement for it was, as some of the playtesters reported, unneeded and unwelcome. More than any other factor, the addition of action points and the radically different combat system make this incompatible with previous material, and seems to be the thing that is universally being complained about on every single RPG forum.

In language even I think is pretty harsh.

The general consensus is that, while the change to righteous fury is welcome, the rest has generally caused more problems than it solved, the biggest complaint aside from the sniper rifle/one shot issue is GMs tracking all the different conditions and wounds. While Manchu may hate the HP bubble, it is very easy to keep track of. The removal of strength bonuses from some melee weapons and the fundamental changes to weapon AP and armor ratings have also raised a lot of eyebrows.

From our perspective, all this change, needed or otherwise, plus moving to an largely new setting is asking for trouble, as it maximizes risk while minimizing reward, from a publishing standpoint. Someone mentioned earlier they felt this was a very easy game to pick up and that would carry it. Under normal circumstances, or with a new game, this would be correct. However, this game is a new edition to an older game, and has a very small target demographic compared to a lot of RPGs to draw on. Further, the way FFG's release schedule works, it's quite possibly going to be competing with itself for gamer dollars, as it's other 40k properties, unless it intends to drop them totally, will be directly competing with DH2E.

This is why Manchu's assertions about not being a D&D 4e situation are not entirely accurate, as games like OW, etc are filling the 'Pathfinder' role, ie offering the better portions of the previous version.

First of all, we all of us need to let HBMC speak or not speak for himself.

As to reviewing this beta, or reviewing anything in general, a key mistake is to evaluate something other than what is actually at issue.

As a simple example, I have been discussing the First Aid check under the Medicae skill in the beta. The check is based on Agility. Some have argued it should be based on Intelligence because "in real life" EMTs and nurses rely not on manual dexterity but on knowledge. My counterpoint is that a skill check has a rank component that represents such knowledge. The Agility component, as far as I can tell, is meant to simulate the need to work effectively with speed and precision under non-ideal circumstances, i.e., the mere seconds a PC has to apply the skill in combat. I am not arguing that Agility is the best or only characteristic that anyone could think of in designing a First Aid check in a RPG. I don't think that is at all the issue.

The designers could have chosen otherwise but did not. My appraisal is not of what they could have and didn't choose but rather of what they did. Does an Agility-based First Aid check make sense given how it fits into the greater context of the rules? Yes, it does: the check is obviously intended to be made on a PC's turn during combat. It makes sense to me that clumsier PCs would have a tougher time succeeding in this delicate task under fire. Seeing that this is reasonable, that it does not unbalance any other portion of the rule set, and that it achieves the apparent goal of the designers, I can only conclude that this mechanic is not a problem -- and therefore does not need to be fixed. All talk about what characteristic is "more realistic," from whatever perspective, strikes me as academic; an exercise not in reviewing the beta as a customer but rather in desiring to change it as a designer.

I don't feel the need to read this beta from the viewpoint of square one, as if the beta did not even exist and the real question is "what product would I make if I worked for FFG as a designer?" My questions are "what are these mechanics trying to do and do they succeed?" Perhaps this explains why I have bought the beta, read it, and made an effort to understand it and communicate that understanding -- instead of doing none of that, preemptively declaring it a failure, and cherry-picking other people's vitriolically negative (and sometimes simply incorrect) conclusions to rebroadcast as "the consensus." As a costumer, rather than a game designer, I only expect to be able analyze whether this product is what it claims to be. That is the point of all my posts on this topic.

On that note, I think there is some very sincere but also very mistaken sentiment about what this beta test is meant to be. On the FFG forum, a lot of posters are stressing out over whether FFG will "listen to them" when they suggest scrapping important portions of the rule set, dropping the edition altogether, and/or doing something completely different. It seems to me that those could not possibly be the answers to the question FFG is actually asking. And I'm sure that misunderstanding has already generated and will continue to generate hard feelings among some customers. This is unfortunately a risk any company takes in releasing a beta version, especially an open beta. (I've seen very similar confusion among people who make Kickstarter pledges, a.k.a., risky preorders, viewing themselves as "investors".) I understand that beta tests are often imagined to amount to personal insults; I just don't sympathize at all with that view.

Getting back to the beta combat rules, it strikes me as illegitimate to claim "BS stands for X and should do Y" when that is not at all supported by what the rules actually say. As a matter of fact, BS does not stand for X and it is not meant to do Y. It does not matter what BS was in DH1E. It does not matter what it is in BC or OW. It does not matter what you think it should be. If you want to know what BS does stand for and what it is meant to do in this beta then read the beta for what it is: a new rule system that needs to be evaluated on its terms. In this beta, a BS check is made to determine (1) if you hit, (2) how many times you hit, and (3) what kind of conditions,if any, the resulting wound inflicts on the target. The relevant questions are: does BS do this and is it a reasonable design choice given the apparent intentions of the designers? The relevant questions are not: what do I think BS should do, what would I prefer mechanically, and what kind of design choices would I make instead? Well, to be fair, those could be the relevant questions -- but at that point one has left the realm of reviewing a game and has set out to design one's own homebrew system.

BrookM made a very, very good point last page that merits some reflection: "not everything has to be followed so strictly by the book." It is obvious that not every design decision in a RPG will appeal to every single one of its potential customers. If most of them don't appeal to a certain customer, s/he (if reasonable) will doubtlessly not bother with the product or maybe will buy the product to read the fluff but not to play the game. But even for those who do buy and play the game, there will be sticking points. Because this is a table top RPG, rather than a computer game, every single customer is free to house rule whatever they want. For example, if you prefer that First Aid checks be Intelligence- rather than Agility-based -- you can house rule that. Some design decisions are so central, however, that the house rule would end up swallowing the system. In that case, it important to remember that this is not a matter of the rule set being some completely illogical, poorly designed money grab inflicted upon innocent fans by a cruel and idiotic corporation that clearly does not understand they are simply dooming themselves to ruin.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
While Manchu may hate the HP bubble, it is very easy to keep track of.

Point of clarification, I do not hate the HP bubble and I agree that it very easy to keep track of. I think it is entirely appropriate in D&D 3.5/Pathfinder. PCs in those games are heroic (arguably super-powered) high fantasy adventurers and it makes sense to me that they are as good at full HP as at 1 HP. The HP bubble mechanic suits the designers' intentions.

By contrast, I think the HP Bubble is not appropriate for Call of Cthulhu -- even taking into account that Investigators don't have or ever get much HP and that successful attacks do a lot of damage -- because the PCs are ordinary people. In that sense, what does HP even represent? (This is why the term "HP bubble" exists; so far as I understand, because people liken it to a bubble wrapping that surrounds and insulates the PC's actual physical well being.) How can an ordinary person lose 75% of their HP from a gun shot and yet move, fight, and in all manners act with no penalty?*

In Dark Heresy, the designers do not intend that you play an ordinary person but they do intend that you face challenges that even an exceptional person would find extremely dangerous. So, like in CoC, I don't think the HP bubble is appropriate. At the same time, your PC should be pretty hard precisely because s/he is an Inquisitorial Acolyte. I think the beta wound system does a nice job of taking both goals into consideration. You can probably take a few hits, including some fairly bad ones, but they will cumulatively hinder you and there are only so many hits (at very, very most seven) anyone can take before dying.

*In all fairness to CoC, it is not truly a "modern" game even in its Sixth Edition. Unlike modern games, "old school" games often left a lot up to the GM (or in this case, Keeper) so it could have been designed with the assumption that Keepers would judiciously apply penalties to checks in light of physical injuries on their own initiative.

Manchu, let me counter that:

The same check is made outside combat, where your explanation of Agility makes no sense. Further, to say 'The rules are fine because they work for my play style and achieve the designers goals as I interpret them'. Is actually pretty self centered there, even by my standards. 'It doesn't effect my codex, so it's fine. Working as intended.' I see nothing wrong with saying 'This is how I would do it to achieve X, Y, and Z, and I think it would work better than how they're doing it here.'

I've seen your dismissive routine in several forums now, and am unimpressed. Particularly with how you do that when people suggest viable alternatives to a given rule that make more sense than RAW. (and not just mine, either, from what I've seen. Pretty much anyone who suggests the game would be better with out action points seems fair game),


As far as what the beta is meant to be: any beta test is meant to find and correct the following: balance, unforeseen rule interactions, unclear wording, things that confuse the players. As far as them not listening: of course not. Aside from the obvious, they didn't listen to the playtesters on this, why would they listen to the beta players, or anyone else for that matter?

And, again, saying that 'Well, you don't have to follow the rules' is not a viable response to concerns about the rules. Telling people 'well, go house rule it' as HBMC pointed out earlier, does not address the issue. Designers are not gods, nor do they have a patent on good ideas, and occasionally have produced some really bad mechanics. I've seen other ones where the mechanic worked, but dragged the game out and was generally unpopular, even though it did exactly what the designers wanted it to do . Betas, done by other companies, where fan suggestions for rules were embraced, have generally worked out pretty well, but I doubt we'll see that here.

House ruling is not so much about sidestepping broken mechanics as it is about tailoring a game to your group's or your own idiosyncratic preferences. The lesson is, just because you don't like a rule or might like some other rule better doesn't make a published rule broken or illogical. This is as true of inconsequential matters, like which characteristic you use to make a First Aid check (which by the way, the rule text describes as a quick attempt whether in or outside of combat), as it is for more important ones, like how a system handles combat. As I already mentioned, if you feel the need to house rule the published game away entirely, that game is probably not for you. Fair play -- but don't say the system is crap because it doesn't do what you want, as if what you want is synonymous with good design. I'm sure the folks at FFG know how to sift one kind of criticism from the other.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I've seen your dismissive routine in several forums now, and am unimpressed.

As you well know, I have also seen your posts on the FFG forum. I find them even more misleading than what you post here. For example, after declaring here that the beta combat rules are terrible because they do not simulate a Commissar executing a Guardsman, you started a thread on the FFG forum about the same topic. There you claimed:

when we tested this, the number of guard fatalities was surprisingly low

Yet here you admit to neither reading the rule set nor even having a copy. One wonders how you were able to playtest rules you have not read. Granted, you may have relied on second-hand sources for your test. But then, how could you be sure those sources reported the rules accurately or completely enough to establish a valid test? Clearly, your alleged test was not valid. After explaining the attack and wound rules to you here several times, and discussing them to an even greater extent on the FFG forum with other posters who have read the rules, I demonstrated in your "Headshot Test" thread that testing the scenario you described would not result in "a surprisingly low" fatality rate; it could not result in a fatality at all.

And before you protest that you merely started that thread to see if you had tested the rules correctly, I'll note that a closed beta playtester responded to you:

I'd like to point out that such an action wouldn't use the combat system - or at least any sensible GM I know wouldn't use the combat system for a coup-de-grace like that.

Your response?

That's not the point though. The point is to distill the system down to the very most basic act you can do with it and see if it behaves in a logical manner.

That's the same agenda you were pushing here. So when someone who has playtested the rules throughout closed beta told you that's not what the rules are for, i.e., yes, you are in fact doing it wrong, you dismissed him with the same declaration you made before starting a thread to ask people who were playtesting the rules whether you were doing it right.

Yes I dismiss this kind of bluster from you. It is the only rational response -- aside from simply not responding. And I think that latter option is the more rational. Therefore, I'll gladly answer any questions you have about the beta and correct any further errors you post that might similarly mislead other posters. But I think the conversation has otherwise run its course because I have now answered all your points numerous times and at length and because there don't seem to be any new ones forthcoming.

 Manchu wrote:
Yet here you admit to neither reading the rule set nor even having a copy.

Because between point A and point B that changed. BTW: Did you know that it's possible to hit 60+ corruption in two combat encounters with the blood lust malignancy and power sword with the whirlwind action?

 Manchu wrote:
I demonstrated in your "Headshot Test" thread that testing the scenario you described would not result in "a surprisingly low" fatality rate; it could not result in a fatality at all.

Yes it can. Remember that Righteous Fury auto-kills Novice NPCs under the spectacular demise rule.

 Manchu wrote:

I'll note that a closed beta playtester responded to you:

I'd like to point out that such an action wouldn't use the combat system - or at least any sensible GM I know wouldn't use the combat system for a coup-de-grace like that.

Page 263 states that narrative actions are resolved before combat begins. This also derails your assertion about narrative actions like sniper rifles. Effectively, Millandson was advising RAI over RAW. Which he's right, is sensible. But not the point.

The Fury thing was pointed out to you after you started the thread. Before it was pointed out to you, you yourself posted:

Shooting a mook in the head and rolling max damage only stuns them.

In your example, the only way to roll max damage is to get Righteous Fury. It stands to reason you were therefore not talking about Fury when you noted a "surprisingly low" fatality rate. As to the technical error I made in my post to you just now, I entirely concede the point; it is possible to one shot kill the Guardsman if you assume he is a Novice- or Elite-level NPC.

My point about the Guardsman example is that it is not an example of combat. Therefore p 263 does not apply. I have already conceded that the sniper example is trickier and could be better addressed in a combat scenario. To quote my latest, and I think clearest, post on this issue:

Actions can be used by any character. Similarly, a given weapon can be used by any character.

Trying to address this at either of those points would therefore allow any character with a high BS to reliably make one-shot sniper kills. I don't think high having a high BS in this game is supposed to allow a character to do that. For one thing, being a good shot generally is not the same as having the training, experience, and aptitude to make one-shot sniper kills.

i agree that running a sniper is a valid playstyle. I think the best way to simulate this given the other rules in the beta is to create a sniper elite advance or talent tree. I would not be surprised if something like that didn't make it into the core rulebook -- but I would be grateful if it did.

 Manchu wrote:
As to the technical error I made in my post to you just now, I entirely concede the point; it is possible to one shot kill the Guardsman if you assume he is a Novice- or Elite-level NPC.

You might also pay attention to the fact that I said 'I' came up with the test and 'we' tested it. The test was done by the Hell Party, without yours truly present, using The Kender's copy. I hadn't finished reading my copy yet when I got the results. Another example was posted in the Mechanics feedback section involving an unaware ratling being shot in the head three times at point blank range without any armor at all. They finally house-ruled that he died.

 Manchu wrote:

My point about the Guardsman example is that it is not an example of combat. Therefore p 263 does not apply. I have already conceded that the sniper example is trickier and could be better addressed in a combat scenario. To quote my latest, and I think clearest, post on this issue:

If we assume that this is taking place in a vacuum yes, but if it's in the middle of combat, no. That's why the particular example was selected is that it's something that happens in combat, in 40k, not just outside it.

Anyone have a link to where I can purchase it?

 ThouShallNotHeal wrote:
Anyone have a link to where I can purchase it?

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/115837/Dark-Heresy-2nd-Edition-Beta&affiliate_id=210075

Cheers BrookM.

Ran this last night. Here's an example of wound table run amok:

4 wounds and then the adept get's stabbed in the foot with a knife by a prone and nearly dead (1 wound) mook. The mook rolled 4 past defense (no effect) but previous wounds made it a 24 taking off the adepts leg.

Previous hits had only bruised him.

Really?

Given a sharp knife even a small wound to the leg could debilitate it (and result in death)

A lucky stab severed the major artery & nerves (http://www.innerbody.com/anatomy/nervous/leg-foot take your pick) supplying the leg rendering it useless in the time frame of the combat

later surgical intervention determined the safest course of action was to remove the limb (the GM could always throw in infection/tainted knife/incompetent medic if the PC complains)

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Given a sharp knife even a small wound to the leg could debilitate it (and result in death)

A lucky stab severed the major artery & nerves (http://www.innerbody.com/anatomy/nervous/leg-foot take your pick) supplying the leg rendering it useless in the time frame of the combat

later surgical intervention determined the safest course of action was to remove the limb (the GM could always throw in infection/tainted knife/incompetent medic if the PC complains)

Normally I'd agree with that, but the wound table is pretty clear:

"The attack severs the last segment of the limb, leaving the target staring in agonised wonderment at the red river flowing from his bloody stump. The target is Stunned for 1d5 rounds and suffers Blood Loss (6). Further, the target suffers the Lost Limb condition."

The effect you describe is broadly covered by rolls 16-21 on the wound table, to varying degrees of severity. Unfortunately, rolling any of those but 21 is impossible, because the way the wound table works, it was an automatic +20 to the roll to determine the nature of the wound.



Mind you, to get it to make even this much sense, we had to fudge some things. Originally the mook had managed somehow to stab the adept (who was standing) in the head , without ever leaving the prone position, on the floor, at his feet. with a knife, that he did not throw. That got rerolled.

Baron, you're describing an outlier situation to call a rule bad. A good game master will take that fluff and adjust the rule to match the situation. GMs and rules sets are flexible, and to consider them set in stone is foolish at best.

 Valhallan42nd wrote:
Baron, you're describing an outlier situation to call a rule bad. A good game master will take that fluff and adjust the rule to match the situation. GMs and rules sets are flexible, and to consider them set in stone is foolish at best.

Except it's not. The way the wound system works it's actually pretty common, because ANY successful wound gets a +X bonus to the table, regardless of the actual severity of previous wounds, the strength of the wielder, or even the size of the weapon.

Every barehanded combat is like Fist of the North Star, as long as your punches beat their defense even by a single point (which just leaves a bruise) that sixth or seventh punch explodes their skull like a grenade.

Firearms tend to administer a lot of tiny wounds but not necessarily kill, but no matter WHAT hits them the next turn, it goes through like a landraider. You can hose them down with a bolter, and might only bruise them, but hit them over the head with a lamp the next turn and you'll stave their skulls in.


Saying 'Well the GM has to house rule it'. If I have to house rule a working combat system that makes sense, what's the point of buying a book?

fething hell, am I glad I do not have to deal with you in a gaming group if you're being a pain about everything.