This was brought up in a thread regarding arming an Escher gang, but I didn't want to dilute that thread with this question/discussion further.
Toxin does not seem to be a benefit, in fact it seems often to be a detrimental rule that you have to pay extra for.
As a reminder (and to make sure I have my logic right):
The usual sequence for a weapon is hit -> wound -> save -> damage and injury roll(s)
Toxin changes this to hit -> wound -> save -> toxin check.
Toxin checks against t4 have approximately a 50% chance to result in some form of effect. This percentage improves as toughness decreases.
Injury dice always do something, be it a flesh wound or something more serious.
So for a ranged weapon you take the risk of doing nothing whatsoever for an increased chance of taking a fighter out of action. You also bypass their remaining wounds. To my mind, this doesn't seem too bad. Particularly since the only ranged toxin weapon is currently the combi-needler which fires at str 4, and thus should have no problem wounding most targets.
Here is where I start to have a problem; melee weapons.
In melee the injury dice results of serious injury will usually allow you to make a free coup de grace action to take an enemy out of action. This means the chance of taking an enemy out of action is about 50%. This is almost equal to the chance the toxin check gives you, however the injury dice will ALWAYS do something to the enemy, the toxin check can still utterly fail. So in this circumstance, the toxin rule is an active detriment. Against lower toughness values the toxin rule does pull ahead but still always has the chance to do nothing.
Of course the toxin weapon does have the ability to bypass remaining wounds.
So these are my thoughts, in no particular order:
Gas weapons and poison weapons from 40k both alter the to-wound roll. Do you think the necromunda designers intended this to be the case for toxin as well but this got botched when writing the rule? This would afterall completely fix the issue, give Escher a useful tool in melee and justify the exorbitant credit cost of these weapons.
If you wound with a toxin weapon do you still remove a wound from the enemy?
Is the strategy here reliant on using ranged weapons to lay on a few flesh wounds as the enemy closes (thus reducing their toughness) so that they can be finished off with toxin weapons?
The chem synth helps, but since it is an action it does not really help the melee weapons that much as you will rarely have the chance to use it before striking.
How does the toxin rule currently justify the credit cost of weapons with this rule?
Do you think there will be a FAQ or alteration issued by GW to address this (and the many many other editing/copying issues) present in the rulebooks?
Here endeth the poorly constructed ramble
Toxin does not seem to be a benefit, in fact it seems often to be a detrimental rule that you have to pay extra for.
As a reminder (and to make sure I have my logic right):
The usual sequence for a weapon is hit -> wound -> save -> damage and injury roll(s)
Toxin changes this to hit -> wound -> save -> toxin check.
Toxin checks against t4 have approximately a 50% chance to result in some form of effect. This percentage improves as toughness decreases.
Injury dice always do something, be it a flesh wound or something more serious.
So for a ranged weapon you take the risk of doing nothing whatsoever for an increased chance of taking a fighter out of action. You also bypass their remaining wounds. To my mind, this doesn't seem too bad. Particularly since the only ranged toxin weapon is currently the combi-needler which fires at str 4, and thus should have no problem wounding most targets.
Here is where I start to have a problem; melee weapons.
In melee the injury dice results of serious injury will usually allow you to make a free coup de grace action to take an enemy out of action. This means the chance of taking an enemy out of action is about 50%. This is almost equal to the chance the toxin check gives you, however the injury dice will ALWAYS do something to the enemy, the toxin check can still utterly fail. So in this circumstance, the toxin rule is an active detriment. Against lower toughness values the toxin rule does pull ahead but still always has the chance to do nothing.
Of course the toxin weapon does have the ability to bypass remaining wounds.
So these are my thoughts, in no particular order:
Gas weapons and poison weapons from 40k both alter the to-wound roll. Do you think the necromunda designers intended this to be the case for toxin as well but this got botched when writing the rule? This would afterall completely fix the issue, give Escher a useful tool in melee and justify the exorbitant credit cost of these weapons.
If you wound with a toxin weapon do you still remove a wound from the enemy?
Is the strategy here reliant on using ranged weapons to lay on a few flesh wounds as the enemy closes (thus reducing their toughness) so that they can be finished off with toxin weapons?
The chem synth helps, but since it is an action it does not really help the melee weapons that much as you will rarely have the chance to use it before striking.
How does the toxin rule currently justify the credit cost of weapons with this rule?
Do you think there will be a FAQ or alteration issued by GW to address this (and the many many other editing/copying issues) present in the rulebooks?
Here endeth the poorly constructed ramble
