Toxin - or "if I cut you, do you not bleed?"

Thamoz

Juve
Nov 24, 2017
12
18
3
Sheffield
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: sumpthing

Trafalgar Law

Gang Hero
Mar 14, 2017
828
1,364
98
Chorley, Lancashire, UK
I don't think toxin weapons bypass multi wound models. It says it replaces the injury roll, you only make an injury roll when a model is reduced to 0 wounds.

At the moment Toxin is basically useless in close combat as you have a better chance of taking someone out of action (66.6% vs ~50% for a T4 character)when using a normal weapon. You also still have to wound with the Toxin weapon. It's slightly more useful on a needle rifle, but could also still cause no injury at all.

Chem synth definitely helps (increases the likelihood of wounding and the likelihood of taking out of action), but is pricey at 15cr and requires an action to use.

Like you I suspect that the Toxin roll was supposed to replace the wound roll and not the injury roll, in the same way that gas does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thorgor

Thamoz

Juve
Nov 24, 2017
12
18
3
Sheffield
... so it doesn't bypass multi wounds. Heh, honestly didn't think it would go down in my estimation! I would edit my first post to remove those bits but I don't think I have that facility.

Toxin rule reads:
"Instead of making and injury roll for a toxin attack, roll 2D6. The target's contolling player rolls a D6 and adds the target's toughness. If the target's roll is higher, they shrug off the toxin's effects. If the rolls are equal, the target is seriously injured. I the 2D6 roll is higher, the target goes Out of Action."

It really does make my idea of an Escher gang full of poisoned blades and nasty knife fighting seem rather pathetic :(
 

necrobot

Ganger
Tribe Council
Mar 14, 2012
83
80
58
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
My group played our first necromunda games last night and we actually used the "alter wound" methodology without even thinking about it because I think it just made more sense...otherwise toxin is pretty useless. Guess we'll have to wait for an FAQ
 

Thamoz

Juve
Nov 24, 2017
12
18
3
Sheffield
Just to add to it, having rewatched the video where Owen Barnes (one of the specialist games writers) talking abou Escher tactics and abilities says that toxin and gas allow Escher to circumvent toughness, I am now pretty much certain it is meant to alter the wound roll rather than the injury roll. I really hope this gets FAQd pretty much immediately, but I guess it will take at least a few weeks.
 

Malo

YakTribe Mechanicum
Staff member
Yak Founder
Feb 17, 2011
5,259
6,166
233
46
York, PA, USA
yaktribe.games
Another possibility is it could be intended to be in addition to, rather than instead of, making an injury roll?

After all even if the poison doesn't take effect, you still got stabbed!
Or at least a Flesh Wound. Currently written, Toxin seems to be a detriment for close combat weapons, not a bonus. As stated, the problem lies in the activation and Cool check (crappy on Escher) for the chem-synth, plus the cost. With the way close combat works now, you have to be already Engaged and hope that you win Priority or there's other things going on to ensure your opponent activates someone else first so you can apply chem-synth (40% chance for gangers) then attack. If your Engaged opponent activates first, usually you're dead since there's no opposing roll anymore in close combat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stoof

Longinus

Juve
May 27, 2015
46
56
18
There indeed seems to be something wrong with the toxin rule, it is hard to believe they intended it to work as they actually wrote it. Escher are Melee focused gang but their melee weapons are basically more expensive, yet worse than generic variants. Until this gets fixed I think my Escher will have normal swords and knives from the legacy list.
 

Trafalgar Law

Gang Hero
Mar 14, 2017
828
1,364
98
Chorley, Lancashire, UK
I just noticed when writing out my first gang cards that there's no stat for damage on the needle rifle bit of the combi weapon. The only other weapons that don't have a damage stat are the gas grenades and chem thrower. This suggests to me that, like the gas weapons, the toxin roll was intended to replace the wound roll in the same way.

The sword and knife do have a damage stat though, so not sure how that should be played.
 

Malo

YakTribe Mechanicum
Staff member
Yak Founder
Feb 17, 2011
5,259
6,166
233
46
York, PA, USA
yaktribe.games
I just noticed when writing out my first gang cards that there's no stat for damage on the needle rifle bit of the combi weapon. The only other weapons that don't have a damage stat are the gas grenades and chem thrower. This suggests to me that, like the gas weapons, the toxin roll was intended to replace the wound roll in the same way.
pg 53, 3. Inflict Damage states if a weapon doesn't have a Damage value, wounds are reduced by 1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrexPushups

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
3,796
8,561
138
35
Sevres 92130 France
The bit about chem-synth helping the Wound roll has been mentionned a few times but maybe not in this thread.
The redditer missed something about close combat though: as long as you are not engaged with another enemy fighter, the Coup de grâce to finish a downed opponent is a free action (and can therefore be used after a chemsynth enhanced attack).
 

Jacob Dryearth

Gang Hero
Sep 6, 2016
868
998
103
Yeah I noticed the coup de grace error. I do think he is accurate about toxin negating the benefit true grit and unstoppable. Leads me to believe that toxin in close combat is good later in the campaign.
 

Draco

Gang Champion
Oct 7, 2017
262
123
43
I read toxin weapons as able to knockout multiple wound models on a single shot. 2d6 vs d6+toughness.

Pass = no effect.
Tie = down, regardless of wounds.
Loss = out of action.

Am I missing something?
 

Trafalgar Law

Gang Hero
Mar 14, 2017
828
1,364
98
Chorley, Lancashire, UK
It currently only affects injury rolls which only happen when reduced to 0 wounds.

Gas weapons bypass multi-wounds, but not toxin.

n.b. I think this is probably a mistake and hopefully will be fixed soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thorgor