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.

 BrookM wrote:
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.

As a GM I expect to get a combat system that doesn't leave my players rolling on the floor laughing about how bad it is when I shell out money. It reached the point where they started yelling things like 'FATALITY!' when we tested the idea of just going bare handed.

Did we have fun? Yes, but for entirely the wrong reasons.

BTW: if I was going to complain about an outlier I'd complain about the chain reaction of exploding PCs and NPCs that resulted in an eventual TPK, due to the way the wound system works.

So I just read on Bols that the Income and item Rarity system has been scrapped in favour for a simple "roll and you get it". Now I recognise that it is a minor subsystem, that many may have just handwaved away, but I really liked it.

I felt it gave an air of realism to the setting- showing that you were very much a minor cog in the machine, and that supplies for the most potent weapons were in short supply.. It called to mind a wonderful passage in the =][= War trilogy of scrounging amongst religious relic market traders for bolt shells- most were duds, expended, or fake, but one or two were real. A shame.

 CadianXV wrote:
So I just read on Bols that the Income and item Rarity system has been scrapped in favour for a simple "roll and you get it". Now I recognise that it is a minor subsystem, that many may have just handwaved away, but I really liked it.

I felt it gave an air of realism to the setting- showing that you were very much a minor cog in the machine, and that supplies for the most potent weapons were in short supply.. It called to mind a wonderful passage in the =][= War trilogy of scrounging amongst religious relic market traders for bolt shells- most were duds, expended, or fake, but one or two were real. A shame.

Hm, so no more money at all? I must admit the old income system was a little but cumbersome, particularly when the majority of it was "GM's discretion how many months of pay you get after the mission/at the intermission/etc". The item rarity system however was even more cumbersome and I'm not really sad to see it go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
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?

That does sound a bit silly. Do things really stack up that badly? Were the previous wounds "near death" or some such? I've been reading through the new systems slowly.

 ph34r wrote:

 CadianXV wrote:
So I just read on Bols that the Income and item Rarity system has been scrapped in favour for a simple "roll and you get it". Now I recognise that it is a minor subsystem, that many may have just handwaved away, but I really liked it.

I felt it gave an air of realism to the setting- showing that you were very much a minor cog in the machine, and that supplies for the most potent weapons were in short supply.. It called to mind a wonderful passage in the =][= War trilogy of scrounging amongst religious relic market traders for bolt shells- most were duds, expended, or fake, but one or two were real. A shame.

Hm, so no more money at all? I must admit the old income system was a little but cumbersome, particularly when the majority of it was "GM's discretion how many months of pay you get after the mission/at the intermission/etc". The item rarity system however was even more cumbersome and I'm not really sad to see it go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
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?

That does sound a bit silly. Do things really stack up that badly? Were the previous wounds "near death" or some such? I've been reading through the new systems slowly.

In regards to wounds: if you were already wounded in the leg that many times or was damaged by an attack enough to get a 24 then it's a case of your leg being essentially shredded before the attack was made. As you do not roll on the chart, those 4 wounds dealt must have been at a +20 from an existing critical wound hence it is no surprise it did that much damage.

Unless you are utilizing the wound system wrongly (applying a single wound to all areas) then he had already taken a massive hit to that leg or otherwise had already taken multiple wound.

Yes the system does stack up quite badly, but only if you are hit in the exact same location, bypassing defence multiple times or by a single large damaging attack which is more than a single multiple of your defence.

 Ehsteve wrote:

In regards to wounds: if you were already wounded in the leg that many times or was damaged by an attack enough to get a 24 then it's a case of your leg being essentially shredded before the attack was made. As you do not roll on the chart, those 4 wounds dealt must have been at a +20 from an existing critical wound hence it is no surprise it did that much damage.

Unless you are utilizing the wound system wrongly (applying a single wound to all areas) then he had already taken a massive hit to that leg or otherwise had already taken multiple wound.

Yes the system does stack up quite badly, but only if you are hit in the exact same location, bypassing defence multiple times or by a single large damaging attack which is more than a single multiple of your defence.

Page 207 "Whenever a character receives a new wound, he also suffers one or more effects from that wound. To determine the wound effect, the character takes the total damage dealt by the hit (damage value minus defence value) and adds modifiers for each wound he was suffering from prior to the attack:
• Wound: +5
• Critical Wound: +10

The target then compares this value to the appropriate wound effect table based on the affected body location (Head, Body, or Limb) and the damage type of the attack (Energy, Impact, or Rending). He then suffers any effects listed on the appropriate entry of the table."

It's not each wound he was suffering from in that location, it's each wound he was suffering from total. In the example with the Adept, the previous 4 wounds were to the torso, and only ever rolled 4-6 past defense, which according to the wound table is just a bruise. The next attack also rolled a 4 past defense, but due to the fact that this is a new attack, the previous 4 wounds count as a +20 bonus to the roll, even though they were insignificant themselves.

Given it was the 5th Wound Effect that lopped his foot off, the wound before that (the 4th effect) would have at minimum done enough damage to temporarily cripple the limb, while the previous ones would be inflicting Blood Loss and slowing. So I'm not surprised that getting his leg hacked at for the fifth time finally removed part of it.

"Wounds represent physical trauma to a character’s body.
They are primarily caused by damage inflicted from weapons
or environmental effect. They are tracked based on the hit
location to which they are inflicted, have varying severities,
and can cause additional effects based on their nature."

Chrysis wrote:
Given it was the 5th Wound Effect that lopped his foot off, the wound before that (the 4th effect) would have at minimum done enough damage to temporarily cripple the limb, while the previous ones would be inflicting Blood Loss and slowing. So I'm not surprised that getting his leg hacked at for the fifth time finally removed part of it.

"Wounds represent physical trauma to a character’s body.
They are primarily caused by damage inflicted from weapons
or environmental effect. They are tracked based on the hit
location to which they are inflicted, have varying severities,
and can cause additional effects based on their nature."

Yes, wounds are tracked that way, but when determining wound effects it checks them against all wounds the character has received. Notice when you check the wound table it is not "each wound he was suffering from in that location prior to the attack" it is instead "each wound he was suffering from prior to the attack"


Remember: "All wound effects are tracked separate from the wound that caused them" The system treats the Wound and the Wound Effect as two totally separate things.

Do you think that is an unintentional difference in rules language? Or is it meant that a man with a severely crippled leg will head explode if pistol whipped?

 ph34r wrote:
Or is it meant that a man with a severely crippled leg will head explode if pistol whipped?

This could happen. If you take an attack that does 6 hits, all at one location or spread over many locations, the first hit from the next attack will kill you. So let's say you took all those hits from the first attack in the left leg and the first hit from the next attack in the head. Even if all of those first six hits gave you mere bruises, the last one will decapitate you.

Yes, that is the problem with how the rules are written. And Baron is right on that, while the wounds are tracked by location it's ultimately irrelevant as location isn't considered for the "bonus" wound effect. Of course, I can't imagine that's what they had in mind (even though the example acknowledges the RAW) otherwise there'd be no reason to track wounds by location.

Of course the other problem is the one that's being pointed out. A 4 round burst is less deadly than 4 one round bursts due to being applied simultaneously and so not stacking wound mods. If wounds are being taken into account by location it doesn't matter so much, as it's unlikely two wounds in a burst will end up hitting the same location. But under the current system four single shots are better than one four round burst.

 Manchu wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
Or is it meant that a man with a severely crippled leg will head explode if pistol whipped?

This could happen. If you take an attack that does 6 hits, all at one location or spread over many locations, the first hit from the next attack will kill you. So let's say you took all those hits from the first attack in the left leg and the first hit from the next attack in the head. Even if all of those first six hits gave you mere bruises, the last one will decapitate you.

See, that's an idiotic, broken system. So, not only is a point-blank bolter round to the head incredibly unlikely to kill any of the characters, but it's entirely possible that they could fight off an entire hoard of enemy mooks with nothing more than a couple of bruises, and still have their head blow apart like a melon struck by a sledgehammer because the very last of those mooks gives them a light slap across the chops? What is this, the Three Stooges?

It seems like these complaints are largely based on obviously-silly rules interpretations. Regardless of whether the RAW indicates that being punched several times means the next hit will FINISH HIM or whatever, I think there are a lot of things that might be better to focus on.

For instance, old Dark Heresy's completely ridiculous armor system has been fixed. That alone improves the combat to a huge extent, regardless of whether the values for wounds/additional damage need to be tweaked.

It's not six bruises that do you in. It's getting decapitated.

In the rule book for the D&D retroclone Lamentations of the Flame Princes, James Raggi writes:

Defeating enemies is a minor way of gaining experience. This is not a game about combat or slaying foes; these activities are simply frequent necessities in the harsh reality of the game. Characters who prefer to fight when it is unnecessary are lunatics, possibly psychotic, and not likely to survive long in game run by a competent Referee.

When the beta first went up, there were complaints that getting killed was way too hard, especially circling around the alleged rarity of one-shot kills. Perhaps it's beginning to sink in that combat is actually extremely dangerous. How ironic that this, too, is a matter of one-shot kills. Like many games, DH2E has random critical hits (Righteous Fury) but it goes further by adding "inevitable" critical hits. To wit, one of the many purposes of the wound table mechanic is to count down to such a critical hit. The icing on the cake is, this brand of critical hit is always fatal.

Anyone can understand as a matter of reason that likelihood of death by injury is directly proportional, generally speaking, to time spent undertaking a potentially fatal activity. We can define lethality as a measurement of how quickly that likelihood approaches 100%. In DH2E, minimum lethality is seven turns at 1 hit per turn for all characters of all ranks, except Novice- and Elite-level NPCs. In other words, if your character has been bruised six times then you know he's about to be decapitated or similar.

Narratively speaking, previous wounds may have everything or nothing (or somewhere in between) to do with the death blow. Like in most RPGs, that's up to the GM and, to paraphrase a recent comment by BrookM ITT, some folks are better at this than others. DH2E is not even unique in that PCs have a clear sense of how much more they can take. Indeed, (unlike in DH2E) PCs always go from merely bruised to dead in HP bubble games.

 Kingsley wrote:
It seems like these complaints are largely based on obviously-silly rules interpretations.

They're not, and maybe when you've played the game you'll realise that.

Well, if he's talking about the bruise-to-kill interpretation then he's right -- that is obviously silly.

 Manchu wrote:
The icing on the cake is, this brand of critical hit is always fatal.

Quote possibly fatal to everyone in a 1d10 meter radius from the fact that people explode like a half strength frag grenade on death, but only if they use the wound table.

 Manchu wrote:
In other words, if your character has been bruised six times then you know he's about to be decapitated or similar.

Yes, because being punched by a unarmed juvie who did not roll RF and just beat your def by a single point is going to smash your head like a melon. Probably killing himself in the process from your skull shrapnel.

 Manchu wrote:

Narratively speaking, previous wounds may have everything or nothing (or somewhere in between) to do with the death blow. Like in most RPGs, that's up to the GM and, to paraphrase a recent comment by BrookM ITT, some folks are better at this than others. DH2E is not even unique in that PCs have a clear sense of how much more they can take. Indeed, (unlike in DH2E) PCs always go from merely bruised to dead in HP bubble games.

Well, first of all, again resorting to GM fiat to hand-waive away combat results that are either broken or nonsensical should be a rarity, not something that has to be done almost every combat. Second, to cast aspirations on a GMs skill without ever having sat at a table with them is the height of arrogance, and, despite the fact that I'm sure HBMC, at least, would ROFL at what I'd LIKE to post in response to that, I know that Dakka would ban me for being rude to a mod, no matter how hilarious the take down would be.

So let me put it this way. I had Gary Gygax sit down at MY table and have a good time. The community came astonishingly close to reading MY name in an official GW product. There are FFG writers and playtesters who come to ME for advice (and for a sympathetic ear on occasion). And despite my rather rant-y style of reviews, my taking over DR was not only approved of by the community, and it's admins, and the playtesters (mostly) but anointed by Sam Stewart and Ross Watson.

So, by all means, imply that I suck as a GM (we're all entitled to our opinions). Just don't expect me or anyone who's ever sat at my table to take you seriously.

I don't know if HBMC, who seems to be agreeing with me, or any of the other posters who have, are the GM, but I would suggest that if he is, I would assume that he's a good one, for obvious reasons.

As far as complaining about this a lot, I am bitchy about this. Because I'm fething furious. This isn't a beta. It's barely an alpha, and that sad part is that this is after months of playtesting and fixing, and it's STILL this broken. I told Andy Fisher that his hands off, 'let the GM's fix it', approach was not a good idea back when he and I were discussing re-balancing the Defiant Class for RT in the errata by giving it the str 2 lbs, since that had to be errata'd anyway due to a misprint. Here we see the grim fruits of that approach (coupled most likely with the fact they're distracted by Star Wars).

And as far as that 'always' at the end goes, I suggest you might check out the little known games Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, and Only War, since, no, you don't actually just 'die' when your wounds run out.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure


Critical Existence Failure is necessary for videogames, but IMHO comes off as just STRANGE and breaking suspension of belief in a roleplaying (non-video)game.

In this case it's more of a http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhyAmITicking

The way the tables work, there's a fair chance of a crit or just enough wounds not only killing the target but causing splash damage measured in meters. Which, if it 'explodes' another PC/NPC can cause a rather messy chain reaction, as each of these 'attacks' is resolved separately, granting each exploding PC/NPC detonation that same +5 per previous wound.

I think it's funny how people set on fire will inevitably explode. In the grim darkness of the 41st Millennium, blood is a highly explosive material!

Anyway, stepping away from Beta news and onto more Rogue Trader-y and Deathwatch-y things:

FFG wrote:In His Name
A Designer Diary For Rogue Trader: Faith and Coin by John Dunn



"You may have the power to force my actions, but only the God-Emperor has the authority to do so. If you continue on this course, you shall know His justice."
–Jollus Marquette

As Rogue Traders venture across the Koronus Expanse, and beyond, they often travel in the company of missionaries. Faith and Coin, an upcoming supplement for Rogue Trader, explores the complex relationships between Rogue Traders and Missionaries, as both parties work to further their own ends—and of course, carry out the will of the Emperor. In today’s Designer Diary, contributing writer John Dunn introduces Saint Cognatius, and sets the stage for The Sacred Heart, an adventure included in Faith and Coin.


Traders and Missionaries

The activities and agents of the Missionarus Galaxia within the Koronus Expanse offered a great opportunity to explore some of the region's ancient secrets and sacred legends. As Rogue Traders journey the vast expanse of the galaxy beyond the Imperium of Man, they often encounter lost splinters of humanity. Many of these lost children of Terra do not know the grace of the God-Emperor, nor do they recognise the authority of the Imperium—and both of these facts must change if the Imperium is to prosper and reclaim its rightful domain amidst the stars of the Koronus Expanse. Missionaries, in the service of the Adeptus Ministorum, exist to address such problems. These able stalwarts eagerly accept berths aboard Rogue Trader vessels in the hopes that they can serve His cause by converting some of these benighted souls to accepting their faith in the God-Emperor. These devoted souls embrace their responsibility to reunite the long lost relatives with the Imperium of Man, so that they might know salvation in His light—and so that the Imperium can dominate these worlds much more easily once it reclaims the Koronus Expanse.

In spite of the vast reach of the Imperium of Man, there remain huge numbers of worlds beyond its reach. Countless among these have been colonised by descendants of Terra. Within the unknowable environments of these alien worlds humanity has developed in a huge number of different ways—both physically and culturally. Many of these colonies have succumbed to corruption in some form, whether it be in the form of uncontrolled psykers dominating the population or wicked pacts with things beyond reality. However, even among those populations that have not fallen to the temptations of the Warp or other malign influences, only a very few are immediately ready for the Imperium of Man to arrive demanding tithes.



For the vast majority that are unprepared for the Imperium’s return, Missionaries work to ready the populations to accept the Imperium’s dominion centuries or even millennia before the Imperium truly reaches these worlds. This requires a concerted effort to subvert the local faiths to fit within the grand and varied tapestry of the Imperial Creed while purging elements that cannot be tolerated. Of course, different missionaries have very different approaches to fulfilling these duties, and even radically varied definitions of what can be tolerated and what must be destroyed.

Rogue Traders and their subordinates play a critical role in the work of missionaries. Beyond merely ferrying missionaries from world to uncharted world, Rogue Traders often become involved in the task missionaries strive to fulfill—though whether their support comes from genuine piety, raw avarice, or something in between depends on the individual Rogue Trader. A Rogue Trader and his crew can stand to make a great deal of money by backing the right missionary at the right time, and the skills that a Rogue Trader and especially his Seneschal can bring to the missionary’s effort can be invaluable.

The Ways of St. Cognatius

Many missionaries have worked among the human-held worlds of the Koronus Expanse over its history. Some among them are linked by the legend of an ancient figure, a fierce devotee of the God-Emperor remembered as St. Cognatius. As one of the very few saints recognised by the Ecclesiarchy and associated with the Koronus Expanse, many have sought out his patronage while they travelled through this region. Dozens of devotees have undertaken missions of conversion and faith with the legends of St. Cognatius at the forefront of their minds. Many missionaries have hoped to emulate the success he enjoyed in the region, millennia ago. Others hope that they might find his final resting place, so that they can discover the miraculous archeotechnology and ancient relics that legends associate with his triumphs.



The first chapter of Faith and Coin focuses on the legends of four different missionaries, who all served within the Koronus Expanse. Each encountered a range of different challenges, but each also followed a distinct methodology as part of his or her mission. All were loyal and true servants of the Ecclesiarchy, but each chose to follow a distinctive means to convert worlds unknown. St. Cognatius and his legend served as the one additional link that each of these missionaries shared. All sought to uncover his legend, in the hopes that they might gather further glory for the Imperium by recovering his sacred Tomb.

The broad range of different approaches serves to illustrate both the differing philosophies that are active within the Ecclesiarchy, but also some of the variety of responses possible to those beliefs. As the missionaries interacted with the various worlds of the Koronus Expanse, they faced a number of different challenges—both from the dangers implicit on the worlds and from the agents of the Imperium who sought to destroy them rather than offer them support. Their stories can be part inspiration and cautionary tale to a missionary operating in the Koronus Expanse in their wake. Now, centuries later, the organisations and relics they left behind for their successors provide resources for those with the drive to seek them. And some whisper that these legends, logs, and clues even contain the secret location of the final resting place of St. Cognatius and his relic ship, the Sacred Heart...

Thanks, John!

Check out the following pages (pdf, 5.5 MB), excerpted from Faith and Coin, for more on this upcoming supplement. Then, keep checking back for more news about Rogue Trader: Faith and Coin!

Hmm... did anyone tell John that 'Sacred Heart' was the name of the hospital from Scrubs? I will now view this ship as the 40K version of that place, where Lord-Surgeon Perry Coxius stalks the halls, using his various medical mechadendrites to belittle his Medicae students.

Anyway, looking forward to this book. I always like books where they focus on something that's never really dealt with in 40K-proper (Tech-Priests, Navigators, Astropaths, and now Missionaries).

FFG wrote:How Will You Be Remembered?
A Designer Diary for Deathwatch: The Emperor's Chosen by Jason Marker



Recently, we announced The Emperor’s Chosen, a supplement for Deathwatch. In an earlier preview, the legacies of Deathwatch veterans, and their legendary kill-teams were explored. The Emperor’s Chosen allows dedicated and elite members of the Deathwatch to ascend to Deathwatch veteran. Kill-teams may follow in the footsteps of the heroic veteran squads that came before them with the Heroic Legacies included in The Emperor’s Chosen.

Those few Space Marines who have served the Emperor with distinction and honor in the Deathwatch, and their masterful Kill-teams serve to inspire those who would follow in their footsteps. Aspire to honor the Emperor and the memories of your predecessor with Heroic Legacies. In this upcoming supplement for Deathwatch, you’ll find Heroic Legacies that are modeled after the greatest veteran kill-teams ever to fight for the Imperium in the Jericho Reach Deathwatch. Contributing writer Jason Marker discusses the role of Heroic Legacies in The Emperor’s Chosen. Read what he has to say below, as you prepare to advance yourself and your Battle-Brothers into the next phase of glory with The Emperor’s Chosen!


A Kill-team of Legendary Prowess

In The Emperor's Chosen, I had the pleasure of writing Chapter II: Figures of Legend. The Battle-Brothers of the Adeptus Astartes are already larger than life heroes, mythic warrior-monks in power armor who journey across the galaxy in His service tackling threats too large or too horrific for other, lesser branches of the Imperial war machine. The goal of my assignment for this project was to discuss those Space Marines who had risen not only to the top of their home chapters, but to the the top of the Jericho Reach Deathwatch as well. These are the stories of Battle-Brothers who had faced the worst that the various xenos races could throw at them and come out not only alive, but covered in laurels.



To start, I wrote about Heroic Legacies. Kill-teams who have worked long together and distinguished themselves both in and out of battle can use their pooled experience points to buy a Historic Legacy. A Heroic Legacy is similar to a kill-team's squad abilities, but is something acquired by the Kill-team themselves and tailored to their experience and manner of working together. The core of the Heroic Legacy package is purchased by the players and provides several options for customization. The specifics are designed by the players and the Game Master, offering numerous options in offensive and defensive formations as well as special manoeuvres that allow a Kill-Team to shape their Heroic Legacy to their own particular combat style. So, a Kill-Team specializing in surgical strikes or stealth can build a powerful legacy around their particular form of warfare, enhancing their abilities and making them truly a power to be reckoned with on the battlefield.

In all, I really enjoyed working on this project and I hope that you, the players, enjoy the fruits of our labor. So go spend your XP, collect your laurels, and go knock some xenos’ heads together. Who knows, perhaps you and your Battle-Brothers will go down in Imperial histories, and your names will be whispered in the halls of the Deathwatch for millennia to come.

Thanks, Jason!

Check out the following pages (pdf, 688 KB), excerpted from The Emperor’s Chosen, for an example of a Heroic Legacy package, and a sample of Heroic Legacies to aspire to in this upcoming supplement. Then, gather your Battle-Brothers and prepare to fight for your place in the annals of history with The Emperor’s Chosen.

Yep. It's a Deathwatch book. Ain't gonna say a single word more about this one.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
As far as complaining about this a lot, I am bitchy about this.

Fair play. No game is going to suit everyone's tastes.

TiamatRoar wrote:
Critical Existence Failure is necessary for videogames, but IMHO comes off as just STRANGE and breaking suspension of belief in a roleplaying (non-video)game.

I agree. That's why it's important -- in any table top RPG -- for the referee to exercise judgment in narrating the results of mechanics. Using D&D as an example, there is no such thing as HP in the world in which the story unfolds; it is up to the DM to narrate in story-terms what happens when your PC loses enough HP to die. DH1E tried to give GMs a little help with this narration by padding out the PC's "health bubble" with 10 more HP that, unlike the rest of your HP, referenced a series of critical hit charts differentiated by hit location and damage type. DH2E reworked this to cover all hits rather than just the last 10 HP's worth and also ditched HP at the same time. What remains, as always, is the need for the GM's good judgment in narrating something appropriate to the scene. Only a poor GM would insist on interpreting the rules so that the scene makes as little sense as possible. "Critical Existence Failure," for example, is not a part of the rules for either DH1E or DH2E. If that's what happens in your game, it's because the GM is not doing her/his job properly.

As I tried to explain above, what does happen in the DH2E mechanics (but not necessarily in the story) is a kind of countdown to taking a fatal hit. I think what's causing the cognitive dissonance with this mechanic is that what the beta refers to as "damage" is not really damage in the traditional sense. The best way I can explain it so far is, your odds of taking a fatal hit increase as you take more wounds in combat. This is not necessarily because those wounds logically lead to the next more severe wound. That's the bruised-to-death GM interpretation that I have characterized as obviously silly. In terms of the rules, you don't get killed on a seventh bruise. But if you take six bruises from one attack, you can be certain that the first hit on the next attack will not be a further bruise. It will be something like getting decapitated.

 Manchu wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
As far as complaining about this a lot, I am bitchy about this.

Fair play. No game is going to suit everyone's tastes.

TiamatRoar wrote:
Critical Existence Failure is necessary for videogames, but IMHO comes off as just STRANGE and breaking suspension of belief in a roleplaying (non-video)game.

I agree. That's why it's important -- in any table top RPG -- for the referee to exercise judgment in narrating the results of mechanics. Using D&D as an example, there is no such thing as HP in the world in which the story unfolds; it is up to the DM to narrate in story-terms what happens when your PC loses enough HP to die. DH1E tried to give GMs a little help with this narration by padding out the PC's "health bubble" with 10 more HP that, unlike the rest of your HP, referenced a series of critical hit charts differentiated by hit location and damage type. DH2E reworked this to cover all hits rather than just the last 10 HP's worth and also ditched HP at the same time. What remains, as always, is the need for the GM's good judgment in narrating something appropriate to the scene. Only a poor GM would insist on interpreting the rules so that the scene makes as little sense as possible. "Critical Existence Failure," for example, is not a part of the rules for either DH1E or DH2E. If that's what happens in your game, it's because the GM is not doing her/his job properly.

As I tried to explain above, what does happen in the DH2E mechanics (but not necessarily in the story) is a kind of countdown to taking a fatal hit. I think what's causing the cognitive dissonance with this mechanic is that what the beta refers to as "damage" is not really damage in the traditional sense. The best way I can explain it so far is, your odds of taking a fatal hit increase as you take more wounds in combat. This is not necessarily because those wounds logically lead to the next more severe wound. That's the bruised-to-death GM interpretation that I have characterized as obviously silly. In terms of the rules, you don't get killed on a seventh bruise. But if you take six bruises from one attack, you can be certain that the first hit on the next attack will not be a further bruise. It will be something like getting decapitated.

I'm actually surprised that you can use the words "cognitive dissonance" in a post where you handwave away the rules as they are presented as "silly interpretation", then present a scenario in which a person takes less punishment than an Olympic rules boxer(ie, padded to hell and back) and then suddenly has their head explode from a basic, unarmed HtH attack as perfectly reasonable and rational, without suffering an irony overload.

And honestly, the way you keep insisting that any flaw in the rules is only a problem for GMs with a terminal lack of imagination is bordering on just insulting anyone who disagrees with you's intelligence.

The rules are supposed to be a tool to help the GM shepard the story, not an obstacle they have to overcome in order to force the story to make some vague kind of rational sense.

You seem to still think the bruises are related to the decapitation as a matter of story. Again, the rules don't say that; it's a GM's call. Every tabletop RPG I can think of requires the GM to interpret mechanics into narrative. A GM who interprets the rules so that the narrative does not make sense is doing a bad job. Sorry but I can't phrase this any more simply.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


So let me put it this way. I had Gary Gygax sit down at MY table and have a good time. The community came astonishingly close to reading MY name in an official GW product. There are FFG writers and playtesters who come to ME for advice (and for a sympathetic ear on occasion). And despite my rather rant-y style of reviews, my taking over DR was not only approved of by the community, and it's admins, and the playtesters (mostly) but anointed by Sam Stewart and Ross Watson.

Whoa there - that sounds a lot like a "Do you know who I am?!?" kind of post!

All kidding aside, as a huge fan of 1E AD&D (who still plays it today - with my daughter too! ) I'd love to hear about your experiences with Gary!

 Manchu wrote:
You seem to still think the bruises are related to the decapitation as a matter of story. Again, the rules don't say that; it's a GM's call. Every tabletop RPG I can think of requires the GM to interpret mechanics into narrative. A GM who interprets the rules so that the narrative does not make sense is doing a bad job. Sorry but I can't phrase this any more simply.

Manchu, please then explain to me how I am to hand-waive away the fact that anyone set on fire, who is not extinguished, explodes. Quite literally and with enough force to deal splash damage for up to 30 feet. 'In the grim darkness of the far future underwear is sewn with detcord"? That's a hard one to get around, because it happens to every single target you set on fire.

There's a point where in this case a 'good' GM gives it up as a bad job and hourserules the existing wound tables away, because explaining away how a 90 pound asthmatic Latvian grandma just stove an orks skull in with a table lamp in one blow gets a bit old on the tenth or twelfth time around, because no one is going to believe that there are that many daemonhosts and cybered up little old ladies running around (unless it's a forgeworld or it's the entire plot of the story that someone is mass producing damonhosts).

 BaronIveagh wrote:
please then explain to me how I am to hand-waive away the fact that anyone set on fire, who is not extinguished, explodes

I can explain to you that this is not what the rules say.

The Burning condition is always associated with some number X. At the start of every turn that a PC is afflicted with the Burning condition, he takes a hit of X damage on the appropriate Energy Weapons wound effect table. The death result on the table for head hits is the only one of the three that results in an explosion. For limb and body hits, the target is just severely burnt.

I can also explain to you that it is the GM's job in any RPG, including DH2E, to make judgment calls.

I understand your problem as a GM with narrating that a PC's head explodes because they have burnt to death via the head hit table. Rather than dying from burns, the death entry on this table is clearly meant to reflect being shot with an energy weapon in the skull. That is where you as the GM have a choice: (1) keep the explosion mechanic from the entry but change the flavor text to better reflect what's going on at your table; or (2) ignore the explosion mechanic from the entry and make up a result that better reflects what's going on at your table.

The GM's job is to adjudicate rules. That's GMing 101. DH2E even reminds the players of that on p 12 under the heading "Rule Zero."

 BaronIveagh wrote:
a 90 pound asthmatic Latvian grandma

Why are you talking about Latvian grandmas?

 Manchu wrote:
You seem to still think the bruises are related to the decapitation as a matter of story. Again, the rules don't say that; it's a GM's call. Every tabletop RPG I can think of requires the GM to interpret mechanics into narrative. A GM who interprets the rules so that the narrative does not make sense is doing a bad job. Sorry but I can't phrase this any more simply.

And rules which require the GM to reinterpret every aspect of their function so they make basic logical sense have failed spectacularly, as far as I'm concerned. You know, for a mod, you're really invested in this condescending attitude.

You seem to be confused on a very basic level so I am trying to be as clear as possible. RPG rules require interpretation; that's why there is a GM to begin with.

Just from an outsider's perspective here, some of these rules sound more akin to "throw away entirely" rather than "interpret".

 Manchu wrote:
For limb and body hits, the target is just severely burnt.

Incorrect. On the limb hit, assuming that the target does not die, he gains + 1d10+5 burning. Which guarantees, on the next turn, if the hit is to the torso, he explodes, inflicting burning on everyone who does not evade AND a fear test. Head, same result.

 Manchu wrote:
You seem to be confused on a very basic level so I am trying to be as clear as possible. RPG rules require interpretation; that's why there is a GM to begin with.

Gary Gygax wrote: The dedicated GM is not only an impartial judge of events, but at the same time he is an active force championing the cause of both the preservation of PCs not bent on self-destruction and the continued satisfaction of players who do not seek to see the campaign ruined.

Manchu, while it is true that a gamemaster should be willing to bend, or even ignore, rules to see the party remains entertained and engaged, he must also select a system. One of the key elements of this selection is 'does the player get from point A to Point B in a fair and logical manner'? Another is 'does the risk to the player scale logically with the rewards'? What a system should never do is require a GM to see the future, or require him to change more than 30% of a given system. Both of these are true for this system. In addition, while it comports itself as being a good choice for a combat oriented campaign, it is not.

Further, this is a beta of a system. It is, effectively, to test to see if the game behaves in a logical manner and one consistent with the tenants of good role playing and the internal logic of the setting. If, out of the box, it requires extensive alterations (more than 30%) to make sense, then there are some serious, fundamental flaws in it. The basic fact is that the combat system in this game ONLY works correctly if someone only takes a single wound per turn. Saying that it's the GM's fault not only misses the point of testing out a new system, but shows a very poor understanding of GMing.

The GM is there to design and arbitrate, and to help the party succeed, so long as they act in a rational and non-suicidal manner, and to step in in the rare instance that rules collide in some way that goes against them for mechanical rather than narrative purposes. The RARE instance. A system is poorly designed if the GM has to jump through hoops to explain everything, or a single class or skill is so powerful that all the players want that. In this system the combat requires constant GM 'intervention' to explain away results that should be instantly fatal or could not possibly result in the injuries sustained, and the Defense Tree is practically a no-brainer that Everyone wants, with Agility a clear God stat. Saying that having Rule Zero printed in it as a reminder that the GM can and should do these things does not excuse that they need doing in the first place.

 Alpharius wrote:

Whoa there - that sounds a lot like a "Do you know who I am?!?" kind of post!

LOL HBMC read a 'Do you know who I am?' post from me once and wanted to know why my posts HERE weren't more like it.

 Manchu wrote:
You seem to be confused on a very basic level so I am trying to be as clear as possible. RPG rules require interpretation; that's why there is a GM to begin with.

There it is again. Fine, I'll respond in kind;

Me no not understandy. Me understandy fine. Me no think same as you.

I simply can't dumb down such a basic concept as "I disagree" any more than that. RPG rules should require interpretation when the characters are in an extraordinary situation, not when they're doing something completely ordinary within the setting and which the rules are supposedly written to handle. These situations are NOT extraordinary, they will arise as a matter of course while playing an average game, because the combat rules are so idiotically put together that 40K characters apparently have liquid Semtex for blood and engage in hand-to-hand combat like they're playing Mortal Kombat. You've gone from indignance, to equivocation, to simple condescension, and now you're just flat-out insulting the intelligence and/or ability of anyone who doesn't accept your mental gymnastics.