I like the new rules, but there are still some issues I have with them...

- damage of bows is not in any way related to the users strength, and crossbows should have some kind of penetration (since that is what they were built for in the middle ages - killing knights).

- why is in not possible to "mono" low tech ranged weapons ?

- why does a highborn get 1d5+9 wounds ? Shouldnt it be 8 or even 7 ? They even have a - at Toughness

- the Leadership is awfully underpowered. It should at least be an optional aptitude to psyker for willpower increases (an additional Leadership talent would also help)

- the warhammer seems a little bit too strong compared to the other low tech weapons (+2 would be enough)

- the ag limitations for armours are usually too high to be effective in any way. 5 points lower would suit its reason better. As it is now, your ag is usually much lower anyway

- telepathic link is an awful mix of mind probe and telepathy. It means, neither of both can be done in a good way.

- a lot of good investigative psy powers are missing, especially for divination. What i see is a copy from only war - a war game...

- tripods and bipods can be used for basic weapon but have no use but to limit their use...maybe it should be a pre-requisite to use the accurate weapon trait effectively

- cybernetics have no real downside (insanity points would be a good idea)

-characters are still able to carry too much in my opinion. They should be able to carry less, but giving backpacks a benefit by reducing the weight inside them.

Other than that - great rules so far !

-I'd only say strength is a factor in Compound Bows, crossbows should have penetration, but only on primitive.

-Could you mono primitive ranged weapons in First Edition? I don't recal it being possible either.

-Highborn..don't know myself, good breeding? The relative higher power level of the system?

-Not sure on the leadership thing

-It's not called Warhammer 40k for nothin'

-I love Ag limitation on armor, we've needed that for a long time. I don't personally see issue with it.

-The psychic powers are bare and or not useful I agree. Telekinesis is crazy underpowered.

-Haven't looked at bi or tri pods, however does a hunter need a bipod to be accurate?

-The downside of cybernetics is that you have to have lost a limb, there's also an easy fix of the person doing the surgery needs a favor. Haywire fields, and critical damage shut them down still right?

-House Rule for carry weight.

Wait, they added wounds again? FFS, why?

It looked so much cleaner and more lethal without.

Have they ever taken wounds away from a 40k system?

I couldn't find them in the DH 2.0 beta our group has. There was an injury system with saves v.s. insta-death instead. It was rather neat, tbh.

Yeah that was from the original beta. The second iteration brought the mechanics in line with OW. As I recall the wounds table thing was a bit of a mess, mechanically.

Bows are set according to a given draw weight. A stronger guy with a light draw weight bow will find the draw easier but won't generate any more velocity than a weaker guy with the same bow.

Yeah that was from the original beta. The second iteration brought the mechanics in line with OW. As I recall the wounds table thing was a bit of a mess, mechanically.

Hah, well, it's a shame they went back to wounds then, truth be told. The HPless system seems like something that can work really, really well for anything. Oh well...I'll see how the actual thing looks when it hits the shelves here I suppose

It looks lovely!

The HPless system was interesting, but clunky as all hell. Having to look at a table every time you were hit is not the ideal way to deal with the issue. Also had bizarre results like someone at full health actually being unkillable to being hit by a burst of autocannon fire. It was probably best that they dropped it.

There is a reason that so many systems use HP systems: They work. HPless systems are hard to get to work properly. I have yet to come across one that isn't a pain in the neck during game play, even though theoretically they were more "realistic". Personally I don't see a problem with HP until you have the DnD problem where people are huge bags of hit points that can be wailed apon until they just fall over. At the smaller levels like most of the 40k rpg system I don't personally see it as too much of an issue.

Wow, did they really not fix anything from the last weeks of the Beta?

Personally I don't see a problem with HP until you have the DnD problem where people are huge bags of hit points that can be wailed apon until they just fall over.

I would say that that comes down to the GMs teller style. No matter how many wounds my acolytes haves will each bullet that connects have an effect of sort on them, that they maybe are so strong and tough and buff that it dosn´t smack them down are another thing. Its like boxing in my view, each hit does something, maybe not much, maybe just "cosmetic" effects as first, but soon will you **** well feel it.

1. Unfortunately accurate works the same as always

2. autocannon still the best weapon, hvy stubber as always unusable

3. plasma 1d10+6 pistol +7 basic, 6 pen - weak without maximal, should go back to BC levels to be usable

4. chameleoline cloak -30 to hit. Uber bullcrap. Whole Gear is from OW, they are lazy

5. + shock maul deals 1d10+3 yeaah, shock weapon that finally does something

6. + Grav guns as exotic 1d10+6, Pen 8 pistol

7. long las still the best sniper rifle in game, dont bother looking at normal sniper rifle or needler

Focus Power test botched when pushing or with opposed WP tests

10. I dont like the way the NPC stats are presented. Looks like a prelude to warmachine style stats

@ Gaunt - I immediately noticed that highborn is 1d5+9, seems like a mistake, should have +7 or +8 max.

- warhammer is two handed weapon - its has concussive, but deals less damage than ordinary GW

- agree that bows are stupid, someone has printed them without giving much thought

There were some good stuff in the Beta 1.0 that i liked and even use them in current RT campaign, eg:

- Inferno shells overheat, and unreliable - makes them less OP

- motion predictor negated penalty for moving target

- scope increased range

- targeter made dodge harder

Personally I don't see a problem with HP until you have the DnD problem where people are huge bags of hit points that can be wailed apon until they just fall over.

I would say that that comes down to the GMs teller style. No matter how many wounds my acolytes haves will each bullet that connects have an effect of sort on them, that they maybe are so strong and tough and buff that it dosn´t smack them down are another thing. Its like boxing in my view, each hit does something, maybe not much, maybe just "cosmetic" effects as first, but soon will you **** well feel it.

This problem occurs with Master level enemies that have something like 10 or 20 wounds too much, than they should. Evil apostate has 30 wounds, despite being a frail old man. Or Eldar warlock that has 22, and should have something like 15.

They have so many wounds unless they would go down in one or two salvos. Thats ok with me, I played warhammer for a long time, and human is human. He should not go beyond levels reachable by players, or not by much.

FFG have long been inflating Wound numbers, particularly since Deathwatch. Original Dark Heresy stats were built with the idea that they represented something, so humans tended to ride around a Wound level of 8-15 wounds. 20+ Wounds represented things which were really quite big (though PCs could get that many... I think Guardsmen could top out at 22).

When Deathwatch got the damage stats wrong they had to inflate the wounds (and toughness bonus) to make things more of a challenge, and they started doing it across the whole line. I think the worst was in rogue Trader where things didn't need as many wounds as they started getting. I remember some human sized mutant in one of the adventures who has something like 25 wounds, and you were meant to face lots of them.

"- cybernetics have no real downside (insanity points would be a good idea)"

In the grim darkness of the 41st millenium, having your perfectly good arm lopped off to make room for an autoquill arm is not big deal when it serves the emprah.

There are some procedures that give insanity points because even jaded 40k denizens find them abhorrent.

For example the Transgenic Grafting (Dark Heresy - Radical's Handbook pg. 203) is a procedure that gives you the quality of a captured creature and it gives you 1d10 insanity and 1d10 corruption points.

But chainsaw arms are totally chill.

When I was reading the adversaries section, I noticed that most of the enemies has some special ability. It's ok, that they have them, but can't they just be talents? Especially if some of them are completely unreasonable. Eg. a noble you can tell you that he is important, and Fel Bonus number of enemies get's temporary lvl of fatigue because they are scared! If im fightning the noble, I probably know who he is. And there is no saving throw for it. Even if you are Inquisitor with your cadre, and you want to kill some spire noble, and he says "My father is important, you know? He has a whole manufactorium!" And you are like Oh ****, I dont want to mess with this guy.

Another ability of some preacher, that when he uses flame weapons, he cannot hit allies. Yeah, you charge the enemy, and lock them down, and I'll pour flaming prometheum on you, and you wont be hit.

This feels like special powers in video game, not actual RPG. I dont like it, I think its stupid. This, toghether with unreasonably high HP for master lvl enemies, almost make me see HEALTH BARS whenever i shoot someone.

I like the special abilities a lot. It makes such NPCs feel more unique.

I personally like the feeling of sitting in front of a TV or computer monitor and holding a controller or mouse in my hand when I sit down to play tabletop pen and paper make-believe games. I find the health bars my GM illustrates really draw me into the world.

Irony is neither help- nor respectfull.

To be fair to cps, the powers Amaimon is describing don't sound anything at all like any video game I've ever player and trying to insult an RPG by comparing it to a video game (which most of us probably already play too much) is the laziest and dumbest insult. Maybe if RPGs took more cues from video games they'd be more than a niche hobby just above model trains. Or maybe if video games took a hint from RPGs they would still be making video games exactly like they did in NES games with arbitrary extreme difficulty, unfairness, and mechanics disconnected from the source material

I imagine Amaimon's beef is that he thinks that if human NPCs get to follow different rules than the PCs, that the game world will fall apart and it will feel too Gamey. I disagree, but that argument is less silly than claiming its like a video game. The only video games where someone gets a power like "bonus to number of allies equal to fel score" are ones that are specifically emulating able top games.

* The Hard Target talent bestows a -20 on enemy shooters when you run or charge. But running without a talent already gives you a -20, it says in the combat modifiers section.

* The Awareness skill is superfluous compared to the Perception stat. If you want to know if the Acolyte hears something, you would roll for Perception. Why superimpose a skill that does exactly the same over a stat?

The same goes to say for Fellowship and Charm.

* I never liked the cover rules. I don't want to track the hitpoints of a brick wall or wooden doorpost. Our house ruling is -10 for soft cover and -20 for hard cover (to BS).

* I read that an Inquisitor can use a Fate Point to demand a clue to the investigation he is doing from the Gamesmaster? That's so gamey and stupid

* I read that an Inquisitor can use a Fate Point to demand a clue to the investigation he is doing from the Gamesmaster? That's so gamey and stupid

One man's trash...

I loved this mechanic and wished that it was enforced anywhere else within the rules, which it is not The investigation system in this investigation game is all just narrative.

To be fair to cps, the powers Amaimon is describing don't sound anything at all like any video game I've ever player and trying to insult an RPG by comparing it to a video game (which most of us probably already play too much) is the laziest and dumbest insult. Maybe if RPGs took more cues from video games they'd be more than a niche hobby just above model trains. Or maybe if video games took a hint from RPGs they would still be making video games exactly like they did in NES games with arbitrary extreme difficulty, unfairness, and mechanics disconnected from the source material

Mechanics disconnected from the source material? Computer games tend to be going down this route much more than table top games (unless they are trying to emulate that feel). Many computer games have odd special abilities which either do things that are a bit hard to rationalise as in setting, or have arbitrary game balance derived limits put on them (cool downs etc). Tabletop games, from my experience, tend to try much more to get the feel of the source material when constructing a game (d20 versions of anything aside... but then d20 doesn't emulate anything except d20 well. It isn't a generic system).

* The Hard Target talent bestows a -20 on enemy shooters when you run or charge. But running without a talent already gives you a -20, it says in the combat modifiers section.

* The Awareness skill is superfluous compared to the Perception stat. If you want to know if the Acolyte hears something, you would roll for Perception. Why superimpose a skill that does exactly the same over a stat?

The same goes to say for Fellowship and Charm.

* I never liked the cover rules. I don't want to track the hitpoints of a brick wall or wooden doorpost. Our house ruling is -10 for soft cover and -20 for hard cover (to BS).

* I read that an Inquisitor can use a Fate Point to demand a clue to the investigation he is doing from the Gamesmaster? That's so gamey and stupid

Hard Target presumably gives you another -20 on top of that.

The Awareness Skill: If asked for it they don't have it they are rolling Perception at -20. They can also train awareness higher than the base stat level. The real question is whether it is justified having the Perception stat, as so little is based of it (it didn't exist in WRFP 2nd edition, which the 40k system was developed from). I think it has improved over the game lines (more talents that key off it, I think), but it is still an under used stat.

Cover: Use as much as you like. It is your rules. I would say if you don't want to track hit points, just go "This cover stops hits, this cover doesn't, but gives a couple of extra points of armour and this cover provides no protection, but if someone hides behind it they can't be seen."

FFG are trying 1) to give the system a more narrative slant (the system is a really non-narrative system... it is what I tend to call a representative one), which many of the "Spend Fate point to do x automatically" abilities are meant to do, 2) these kinds of abilities are meant to avoid plot derailment due to failed tests at crucial moments (which the old system was prone to, particularly with inexperienced GMs) and 3) it is a crutch for less experienced players (or even experienced players who get sidetracked and want to get back to the main plot). It gives them a mechanical way to go "We are a bit stumped here, but we want to engage with your plot. Can we please be told what the right direction is to take?" It also represents the broad experience that would give an Inquisitor the insight into these kind problems which a Player simply will not have.

Awareness should simply be a Talent that allows you to reroll a failed (senses based) Perception check or something.

Turning it into a skill means everybody without it is turned into a blundering idiot with dulled senses, due to the -20 penalty.