Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
0.113

Why isn't there an official answer to healing

Recommended Posts

since the rules are not that obvious, how come there isn't an official response to how it's supposed to be handled? It's about time there is one to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty obvious to me.

Since you are so up to speed with the errata I don't think I have to explain to you how healing works, the FAQ portion answers it quite succinctly.

 

Remember, basic rules are "basic" rules. Under normal circumstances that is how things are meant to work. When you bring in items or abilities that change how the rules work then you go by them.

A medic with healing gear is going to be able to heal better than a medic without it. Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have a pretty good idea how it works, but there are some difficulties when it comes to people with the auto-sanguine and/or hardy talent and when people are critically injured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.113 said:

I think I have a pretty good idea how it works, but there are some difficulties when it comes to people with the auto-sanguine and/or hardy talent and when people are critically injured.

What specifically?  You've basically got three wound states- light, heavy, critical.  If you have hardy or the like, you often don't care about anything but light.  When you've got an apothecary with you you often don't care about anything but light (since the narthecium triples the range that a person is considered lightly wounded).  You only care about heavy in terms of healing naturally.  You care a lot about critical because as per RAW most heal checks at that point only restore one point, and you can't use fate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charmander said:

What specifically?  You've basically got three wound states- light, heavy, critical.  If you have hardy or the like, you often don't care about anything but light.  When you've got an apothecary with you you often don't care about anything but light (since the narthecium triples the range that a person is considered lightly wounded).  You only care about heavy in terms of healing naturally.  You care a lot about critical because as per RAW most heal checks at that point only restore one point, and you can't use fate.

Very true.

I'll add, under the basic rules, i.e. medicae first aid checks with no specialized gear or talents, a successful first aid check would heal 1 point.

And

Technically the role of fate states fate point healing cannot affect critical damage, which are the affects a character recieves after reaching a critical level. I'm fairly certain you can heal the wounds from a critical point with fate, but if you're arm got blown off a fate point isn't going to re-attach it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, some say that with auto-sanguine you would heal back critical damage as well, while I disagree. Some say you can heal critical damage as if you were only Lightly damaged, if you have Hardy. I say it's not supposed to work that way.

I even think that despite using a narthecium, if you're on critical damage you are critically damaged and therefore would not heal as if lightly damaged as the narthecium only raises the Threshold for how far up you count as Lightly damaged, not change the fact that after you lost your full wound capacity, you're critically damaged.

If you have Hardy and become critically damaged some claim you still heal 1/day, despite the "natural" healing being zero when critically damaged and same for Auto-sanguine. It doubles "natural" healing, which is 0. 0x2 is still 0.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't speak to the special talents, keep in mind though, what a netharcium is.

Its a device that includes a specialized medical sensing device, most likely space-age X-ray, ultrasound, some kind of MRI type device, and a link to the apothecaries armour which is communicating with and getting injury data from the wounded marine's armour. It includes all kinds of medicines and chemicals to aid space marine healing including, coagulants, anti-coagulants, anti-biotics, adrenaline (powerful enough to make a normal human's heart explode), chemicals to jump start marine implants, chemicals to force a marine into or out of hibernation, and synth-skin. It also includes all manner of surgical tools such as a high power saw, scalpels of varying types, an auto-suture, synth-skin applicator, needles or other forms of chemical injectors, and calipers and spreaders.

So we're talking a portable hospital here. It doesn't take a great stretch of the imagination to see why a netharcium would allow a marine in critical to recieve first aid as if lightly damaged (as long as the marine met the requirements).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By my reading the RAW, if you are 'always considered lightly damaged' then you are 'always considered lightly damaged.'  There is nothing in there that says 'you are always considered lightly damaged unless you care critically injured.'  In other sections, notably fate and natural healing, that talk specifically about critical damage and how abilities do or do not work while critically damaged.  Because of this, I see the wound states as simply wound states- the difference between light and heavy is determined by TB, the difference between those two and critical is wounds, and you can be in a state where your TB is so high that you skip the heavily injured state alltogether.

The Narthecium portion of your argument I agree with- but this is because the difference between light and heavy is TB, and the difference between light/heavy and critical is wound count, not because I see Critical Damage as a special category.  If the Narthecium modifies effective TB for purposes of healing then it would do nothing special for critical because it doesn't do anything to expand how many wounds you can take before being considered critical.  However if said character had hardy or the like, again it would help.  I'd also allow the Narthecium, as herichimo describes, to act as a portable hospital and count for whatever you need to provide medical care to a critical patient.

As for Hardy, it says 'you are always considered lightly damaged for the purposes of healing' which reads to me that 'you are always considered lightly damaged' irrespective of whatever wound category you are in.  Thus if combined with autosanguine (pardon me for my fuzzy memory on autosanguine) you WOULD heal critical because you're considred lightly wounded.  However autosanguine by itself would double nothing, because it doesn't change your wound state.

If you like the lethality/mortality introduced by treating Critical Damage as an entity unto itself, then do so.  I think both methods of gameplay are legitimate (and don't really think that FFG has to clarify on this point as a result).  However I will warn that you from personal experience if you force people to stay in Critical, you can very quickly and easily wind up in a Mission only 25% of the way complete where the whole party is in Critical, which makes success tricky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as for hardy, i'd say "healing" counts as natural healing and shouldn't apply towards critical injuries since your "natural" healing is gone by then, and auto-sanguine in the description mentions healing light injuries faster or something like that, so it suggests not healing critical damage either.

Besides that we play with critical being able to heal easier because as you say it's quite difficult otherwise with hundreds of things that can one hit you anyways :P

healing and treating are different things. We all heal naturally to a certain degree, but some wounds need treatment to be able to heal before we would simply die from them or loose a limb or similar. Their use of the two words are a bit unclear, but I seriously doubt that an apothecary is a magic healer priest, so he should be treating wounds.

I wasn't planning on making a new discussion here, for me it's pretty clear most of it. The narthecium only raises the wound threshold limit and would heal 2+1d5 with the enhanced healing, which is mighty enough.

Also at the moment our GM decided that despite being on critical damage, you could use fate to remove the regular hitpoints making it take longer before you take new critical hits, but since on critical damage your natural healing is still removed and treatment is slower. It works so far, but if it's RAW or not I'm not really sure but doubt it. Doesn't matter that much though but I still think the whole confusing wording in the game could use an explanation. If not for DW then for the coming games who also seem to use Hardy, Auto-sanguine and healing/treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry, but isn't this basically turning into the same thing as your other thread.  Different name same dispute over talents you don't like.

If you're the gm of your game just toss out autosanguine and hardy.  These two talents are only confusing when you set out to make them confusing.  They do exactly what they say, make it so that you are always lightly wounded for the purposes of healing.  It's Occam's razor.  They don't need a complex explanation of how they work.

In your previous thread I pointed out exactly how healing works from the core book, and how these talents interact with first aid, in the book's own language, I didn't make it up and I didn't assume anything (other than the book actually setting forth a set of rules and that medical attention equated to medical treatment).  These two talents don't need any additional explanation.

It's like Artificer Armour, by definition it is 'always Master-Crafted'.  Yet the book says 'Unless specifically stated, an object is considered of Common craftsmanship.'  So, is the table entry for Artificer Armour for a non-existent Common-Crafted suit of Artificer Armour that costs 60 requisition?  No, of course not because Artificer Armour is the same as Master-Crafted Artificer Armour.  Besides that, signature wargear (hero) only allows for 70 requisition, and if Artificer Armour is always Master-Crafted well then one has to conclude that the stat line is for the 'typical' Master-Crafted Artificer Armour.

While you might not find that confusing there are several people who either have or have had reason to debate the issue for +1AP.

If however you want a definitive ruling for your game submit a question if you haven't already and await a reply.  It will take some time to have your question answered, but continuing to debate your question will ultimately get you nowhere as you aren't open to a literal interpretation of the rules.  Instead you want a convoluted ruling that favors your own thoughts, that these two talents are 'overpowered' and need to be quashed.

If I come off as rude I don't mean to.  It's just that this forum is full of people who claim to want insight on how something works, and then they totally discount said insight in favor of their own thoughts.  A large majority of the 'disputes' arise from the fact that the responses don't come from FFG.  If you want an official response don't post in the forum use the Rules Question Link at the bottom of the page.  While you might have originally thought FFG would directly respond to your post it is unlikely and irregular for them to do so.  Having said that… some writers for FFG do seem to frequent the forums here and post responses on what they might have intended when writing something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually I don't dislike those talents, I'm simply not sure how they work. I have an idea but as I looked through the book in detail, and it's still not 100% clear, and other people aren't sure, I think it's bad for a company to make sloppy rules. If something's unclear, because the rules are written in an odd way, an explanation is in order.

I've seen FFG replies in the forums which was why I thought they'd reply here but thanks for the link, I'll try that instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 They're humans, get over it. You can't find me an RPG that doesn't have some kind of rule confusion unless it's the most simplistic and abstract system. I think what this really boils down to is that some people in this world have to find a reason to complain and turn the company into comical villains. "How DARE they release a product that has human errors, my life has been hurt deeply by it". I know you bought the book (even though no one forced you to), but that still doesn't give you a huge entitlement that the company cannot make mistakes. If you're scorned by a companies practices, then stop buying their products, simple as that.

 

As far as healing goes, as NGL said it's clear to the majority of the audience. And in the end this is an RPG which always has a mandate of Rule 0. If you don't like how something is used in the system you don't have to use it. Simple. If you're confused by something and yet despite numerous explanations you still don't get it then come up with a solution that works for you. The people in this thread who have provided alternative methods are simply adapting the system to be a better fit for their perception of how the game works and they're no more correct or incorrect than the original game designers.

Instead of demanding that the system fits your mold make the adjustments yourself instead of waiting for someone to come in an give you the answer that, while not the text as written, is what you're looking for.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 It's not if they have errors or not, it is how bad/how many errors are and whether they are FAQed. Having played tons of D&D from 1st edition to 4th edition, I can tell you that the errors in Deathwatch and Rogue Trader have been much more critical and much more plentiful. I am not the type of person to get really angry about stuff but I think an explanation on some of the stuff that needs some fixing could be made really easily in the Errata. It's not just "if you don't like how the rules are then don't buy it." People who buy these books really want to love the game and the rules questions just make it really hard to play smoothly. Personally, we (somewhat) enjoy debating the rules and making house rule clarifications, etc so this isn't much of a problem. I would, however, like to see official rulings on some of the rule questions so that we can just use those and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Oh poppycock. The errors found in this system are easy enough for any creative GM to glaze over with his own ruling, D&D suffers from glaring design problems regardless the edition. Whether it's Wizards being obnoxiously powerful in 3rd or the broken math progression in 4th that called for "feat taxes". I love D&D as well as Pathfinder, but to say this system is more broken than the critical flaws in WOTC's system is just denial. I would have agreed that Deathwatch was flawed horribly pre-errata but now that weapons are fixed it's much more manageable, even more so if you incorporate the more mature rules of Black Crusade. Again, I love D&D, but it's become something of a laughing stock in the RPG world.

I'm still not convinced that the issues presented here with healing are even an issue. I think that 9 out of 10 issues people claim are "game-breaking problems" are really just rule-lawyers taking RAW to a preposterous level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, there are all sorts of typos in the Core rulebook, blatant overpowering of Librarians (Smite), and a whole truck full of issues that you cannot just "glaze over."  I don't think you have the grounds to make the claim that I am in denial; I am not rationalizing anything for any particular motive. Even in the first weeks of gameplay of Deathwatch by our game group, we found massive glaring errors. We have played D&D for years and there were only a select few that came up. Most of these could be easily fixed with a new version of the Errata or house rules. True, the Errata has fixed many things and I do think there are a lot of great clarifications. But having a rule that says that the squad leader's squad mode abilities only affect those of his chapter makes me wonder how play tested this game is.  I would venture to say that just about everyone who starts playing this game finds that ridiculous and house rules it right away. Like I said earlier, I do not think that these rules are game breaking (beside a few). But I do wonder if anyone has playtested certain things that come up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only "errors" i found that were actually critical was the bloody vagueness of the rules surrounding squad modes. Those took weeks and weeks to work out how they were meant to work.

Balance I will admit was a seperate issue, and Does Not Exist in Deathwatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playtesting is a tricky art, as not all gamers play the game the same way, and there are wildly different opinions on how things are 'supposed' to work.  The rules on whether or not the Squad Leader can use Chapter Abilities to benefit those not of his Chapter is, IMO, is debateable.  I go with the Errata version personally (where it isn't allowed, you have to have a talent or ability to share chapter abilities, period.), but I know of others who don't like that rule.

And is a Deathwatch Librarian any more over powered than a late level Mage from D&D?  As for amount of errors or errata, hasn't D&D published like 140 pages of it, 33 of which was for their player handbooks?

It sucks, yes, but it seems to be the current landscape it seems like either we a consumers are willing to put up with print mistakes waiting for web updates, or our attention spans are too short to permit a company to sit and really test a product thoroughly before we lose interest and move on.

And +1 to Borithan, the only rules I felt were truly lacking at launch were the squad mode rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Are the Librarians less overpowered that Wizards in D&D? Depends on the version of D&D. I am thinking of 4th ed which I found was quite balanced, power-wise. Yes, as consumers, we are pretty impatient. But that impatience is usually for expansion and supplement books and erratas AFTER the game is released. My point is, before we knew Deathwatch was a game being made, customer patient is much less of a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

afterimagedan said:

 Are the Librarians less overpowered that Wizards in D&D? Depends on the version of D&D. I am thinking of 4th ed which I found was quite balanced, power-wise. Yes, as consumers, we are pretty impatient. But that impatience is usually for expansion and supplement books and erratas AFTER the game is released. My point is, before we knew Deathwatch was a game being made, customer patient is much less of a problem.

And I agree, but as soon as we heard Deathwatch was being made people complained for days that the status of it was 'on a boat' which you can still see by all the 'when does the boat turn into a truck' threads from a while back.  Lining up your marketing with your development is never an easy task- you want to drum up excitement to have a successful launch.

Once one publisher starts saying 'rules corrections are online' and people tolerate it, we get ourselves into a bit of a pickle as a consumer.

And again, as for deathwatch, I didn't have the same experience as you did apparently; while there were definite gaps in the rules, most of them were easily skipped over or houseruled on the spot. Squad Mode was the exception in our group and took several hours to try and sort through, and lucky for us some forumites figured out the system before us.  The rest of the issues we were able to deal with in a mostly democratic fashion on the spot without much disruption to gameplay.

The big gap I found in DW when I thought of 'who playtested this?' had to do with the some of the balance issues found when stacking abilities together.  To me though, I never had a huge problem with this, as I always viewed DW as being an 'epic level' game in a 'standard' system, and every game I've played in that scenario has had issues- worse issues than DW.  Perhaps my bar was already lowered and it caused me to miss or not care about the issues some of the other's have gotten excited over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...