Well Nim, if it helps you any, when the rules come out, I will be happy to write a detailed note on whether they addressed any of your concerns in the final produced book. Alot of times a finished copy will have addressed concerns like yours, but it didn't take up a public discussion during beta.

I'd be interested to read this, because that chapter was a mess. The Subtlety track was basically just codifying/crunchifying something GMs do anyway, the Reinforcements system was a joke (play another character for a scene!), and the Disposition tables felt totally unnecessary. If they change/replace those things for the final book they won't have been publicly playtested. Maybe that's not such a bad thing, though, given how this one played out.

Pretty much all of what I wrote is in this thread: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/87784-the-influence-and-subtlety-systems/ although I also add in my own suggested rules. I'll try to summarize my thoughts.

The encounter structure should be much more strongly codified and exploration and social encounters should be made more distinct. They currently act as vestigial systems attached to the over-detailed combat engine. Dark Heresy is a crunchy game, fine. Put some of that crunch into the investigation aspects so it's not just up to the GM to make up everything and resolve tasks with a resolution system built around several combatants taking turn over a series of rounds.

The subtlety system is overly fiddly with tons of little modifiers and very fine grain detail that in turn has no suggested mechanical impact and a superfluous table that is a huge waste of space and doesn't even reflect how influence works in the rules. That table should list specific mechanical effects of subtlety (again, this is supposed to be a crunchy system). Also, all of the fiddly modifiers should be put in a table.

The influence system again has way too many fiddly modifiers scattered across the book, and isn't even clear on whether you roll commerce to acquire items or not. It is inexplicably made into a characteristic that works much differently from every other characteristic and ignores the fact that the party should be working together. The suggested increases and decreases for influence are piddly and are things awarded to the entire party, again bringing up the question of why there are individual scores in the first place. Key things such as multiple item acquisitions are missing from the rules. The influence is too swingy and screws with the scarcity theme of dark heresy. Given how important gear is, influence is like making people roll to see if they can spend

XP or not.

The interactions between subtlety and influence are weird, as there is no set weight to either variable, meaning that there's no way of knowing how many subtlety one influence point is worth. What could be a cool duality mechanic is just a few fiddly interactions spread out across the rules.

The insanity and corruption rules are stuck here rather than the playing the game chapter. Fear in particular should

Not be here.

The social system I actually like if disposition is essentially used Social HP that players can build encounters around. Add some structure on running this like combat along with suggested Social Actions and you'd be golden.

There's plenty of other stuff, but these are the things that still annoy me 8+ months later.

The encounter structure should be much more strongly codified and exploration and social encounters should be made more distinct. They currently act as vestigial systems attached to the over-detailed combat engine. Dark Heresy is a crunchy game, fine. Put some of that crunch into the investigation aspects so it's not just up to the GM to make up everything and resolve tasks with a resolution system built around several combatants taking turn over a series of rounds.

Please don't. Please keep the social encounters rules-light and largely dependent on GM interpretation of social skill test DoS/DoF .

Alex

The encounter structure should be much more strongly codified and exploration and social encounters should be made more distinct. They currently act as vestigial systems attached to the over-detailed combat engine. Dark Heresy is a crunchy game, fine. Put some of that crunch into the investigation aspects so it's not just up to the GM to make up everything and resolve tasks with a resolution system built around several combatants taking turn over a series of rounds.

Please don't. Please keep the social encounters rules-light and largely dependent on GM interpretation of social skill test DoS/DoF .

Alex

I think I should recommend Burning Wheel to both of you guys. It has a great social combat system that is deep and relies upon GM player interaction. It wouldn't be too hard to do the same for investigation as well.

My answer is going to have to be negatory. I'm sticking with first edition until such time as the Adeptus Arbites and Adeptus Sororitas are added back in, and hopefully the Adeptus will have the Arbitor Senioris rank this time.

There are a few changes in the beta I really appreciate, but their scope isn't sufficient for me to justify purchasing the whole book rather than incorporating them as house rules into my currently owned games, as I've been doing at least since the days of Black Crusade (which, by the way, was completely worth the purchase if you ask me). Sorry, guys, but my group has been getting slightly tired of 40k lately, and DH2 didn't manage to rekindle our enthusiasm.

Sorry, guys, but my group has been getting slightly tired of 40k lately, and DH2 didn't manage to rekindle our enthusiasm.

This is the exact sentiment of both my IRL group and my main online community. For whatever that's worth.

I've noticed a sharp decline in DH (or 40kRPG in general) interest lately.

Was looking for a game on Roll20, couldn't find a single listing. Haven't seen much discussion of it on /tg/ lately, which is unusual.

My interest, otoh, has revitalized after a longer hiatus.

Alex

Over here, the 40k RPG line sucked away all the TT players. We have something like 6 active gaming groups (with 3-5 players each) even though only one of them plays OW and another plays BC. Everyone else is playing our custom setting and based-on-1.0-Beta system. So yeah, 40k RPGs are definitely on a roll around my gaming club and there is no end on sight (we are now converting MtG players too )!

I'm pretty sure my group won't abandon 40k entirely. We have this sort of issues with all systems periodically - the more you play something, the more you pine for a change of scenery and the more you notice the flaws of the game, real or perceived.

At this point, having followed all the games so far, I get this feeling that I already have more material than I can reasonably utilize in the foreseeable future, and the amount of redundant material between lines is starting to bother me. Much as I hated the first draft of beta, I'm not that keen on seeing another set of Ork statlines, revised in minor ways for the sixth time in a row.

I might get interested again if it turns out the new sector contains a lot of completely new things - new xeno races, new spins on cults and demons, that kind of stuff. I have serious doubts about that happening, though, as for some time it seems FFG is taking their setting in the opposite direction - more direct ports from GW releases, less new stuff and less expanding on obscure stuff.

My take on it is that I like DH1 , but I'm frequently irritated by its bugs and glitches (which are an understandable by-product of being a [then] brand-new system), so naturally I'm looking forward to a corrected/de-bugged version of a game I already like.

Just FYI, DH was not a brand new system. It was a 40K'ified version of the 2nd edition of the WRFP system. In fact the system is probably older than most of the people who play it.

Just FYI, DH was not a brand new system. It was a 40K'ified version of the 2nd edition of the WRFP system. In fact the system is probably older than most of the people who play it.

Yep. We know. Thanks for the reminder.

I'd say DH1 was "new enough" - while it still used many familiar concepts from WFRP2, the amount of changes to almost every aspect of the system was massive.

Looking at the newly posted description of the upcoming edition, I may be changing my vote...

I won't.

I do not like the apptitude system that harshly punishes going outside your little path.

And the flood of talents i have seen so far in OW with every new book.

Not to mention what i read here about the Influence mechanic? *shudders*

I wasn't involved in the Beta.

What I do is I wait until a book is released and then search the web for reviews of the book. When a book becomes available to download, I take a look at the download preview to get an idea of what is in the book. If a combination of reviews and a look at the download preview spark my interest I then go to Amazon and buy, since Amazon tends to cost less.

What have I bought?

Deathwatch, Rites of Battle, Ark of Lost Souls, Rogue Trader, Battlefleet Koronus, Dark Heresy, Dark Heresy Ascension and Black Crusade. Some or all of these I'm thinking of trading back to Amazon, which will get me a discount on purchasing something new.

Will I buy Dark Heresy 2nd Edition?

Games Workshop has done a good job of losing my interest. Mostly due to the high cost of models and partly due to there obsession with limited releases that I always seem to miss out on. But that doesn't mean I can't get stuck into the RPG side of things. There's loads of alternatives to high priced GW minis out there. Even some reasonable "count as Space Marines" that I spotted recently.

I had a strong story idea which spanned Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader and Black Crusade. It seems a shame to throw that all away, but then I could always rewrite some of the ideas into something new, fresh and exciting. So while I sit on the fence as to whether or not I say yes or no to buying this, the question remains:

Is DH 2nd Edition better or worse than the Star Wars RPG's?

I might have to get both books and then compare.

I won't. I do not like the apptitude system that harshly punishes going outside your little path. And the flood of talents i have seen so far in OW with every new book. Not to mention what i read here about the Influence mechanic? *shudders*

Influence is actually perfectly workable, people who complain about it have problems wrapping their head around what the roll represents, that's all.

I won't. I do not like the apptitude system that harshly punishes going outside your little path. And the flood of talents i have seen so far in OW with every new book. Not to mention what i read here about the Influence mechanic? *shudders*

Influence is actually perfectly workable, people who complain about it have problems wrapping their head around what the roll represents, that's all.

While I agree, Influence being a personal resource rather than a group resource feels like a missed opportunity.

I won't. I do not like the apptitude system that harshly punishes going outside your little path. And the flood of talents i have seen so far in OW with every new book. Not to mention what i read here about the Influence mechanic? *shudders*

Influence is actually perfectly workable, people who complain about it have problems wrapping their head around what the roll represents, that's all.

I never really cared about the specifics of how influence is abstracted, but it is unworkable in the sense that it again runs on a system based around making several rolls to do the same thing in combat when you can only make influence rolls once. Did you want basic armor? Too bad, you fail. But you did get a meltagun. Want an explanation for that? Make it up, because the rules don't support one. That, I think, is the primary issue people found with influence being so abstracted, that it gives you very little backing for story and acts as a game mechanic, while also nt being a particularly good game mechanic.

Yeah, Influence raises way too many questions as a mechanic. I love the idea of abstracted wealth and influence, but FFG have never really pulled it off in a particularly great way.

Want an explanation for that? Make it up, because the rules don't support one.

One of the issues I have with the system, is that there's no mechanical recognition of Warbands, Cells, or whatever you want to call the PC party and similar entities.

Many of the instances where using Influence produces in-fiction nonsense, would go away if it was a group resource.

But beyond that, I completely agree with you. It's as if nobody actually tried to use Influence to obtain things during playtesting.

In case anyone's looking for help with this, myself and several others have posted various house-rules for using Influence to obtain goods and services, both here and at Dark Reign, and probably the best take can be found in Kainus' Living 2.3 pdf, also found at Dark Reign.

There is nothing stopping GMs from averaging everyone's influence together and using it solely as a group mechanic.

There is nothing stopping GMs from averaging everyone's influence together and using it solely as a group mechanic.

I've not even read or been part of the beta but that is what I was thinking of doing.