Firstly, of course GM fiat applies, but I prefer to play rules RAW. The designers presumably put a great deal of thought into how their mechanics work to support roleplaying and I prefer therefore to use what they wrote.

Secondly, this isn’t a rant (or not intended to be), but rather intended to start a debate about how to use a potentially cumbersome part of the rules better.

OK, throat cleared, I come to the thorny(?) issue of ‘requisitioning gear’ and using the Influence stat to do so. This certainly works mechanically; I mean there’s nothing flawed particularly in the way the rules work for this. My ‘problem’ is I suppose a personal preference or bias. I find it difficult to use this rules-method to support the roleplaying experience.

Let’s be clear, what we’re talking about here is how the game mechanics limits/handles access to resources.

Why would a GM do this? Resources are limited to enhance play, provide motivation for adventuring, and to allow the GM to control access to more powerful resources or kit. It’s a time-honoured part of roleplaying, from the early D&D ‘equipment escalator by control of PC access to gold coins’ through to modern gaming and concepts like ‘acquisition based on influence’. Players usually like a nice bit of powerful kit and finally getting it can be a form of reward (like XP).

However, the practical upshot of the Influence base requisition appears to be a dull, cumbersome, and terrible PC experience when it comes to acquiring kit.

PC: I need a set of clothes

GM: Roll influence

PC: Ooh, and a chrono

GM: Roll influence – oh, bad luck, no watch for you!

PC: Better get a compact las-pistol too, we’re going under cover

GM: Roll influence

PC: Does that have any ammo clips?

GM: Just one

PC: I’ll need more

GM: Roll influence

Yawning and pulled out hair litters the gaming zone.

Something that could be handled simply and quickly by the player is turned into a tortuous and uncertain shopping trip.

PC: I need some kit for the under cover mission

GM: OK, you have some time to go purchase what you need

The player, a few minutes later has written down his PCs purchases and taken off his money spent.

I think it’s an odd choice to remove ‘item costs’ and coinage from the game, or perhaps rather that’s just my preference?

I understand why this might have occurred. The Imperium is impossibly vast and there are thousands of currencies, etc. What about exchange rates? Too complex. Mind melts. Also presumably, the design wants to remove this element of the gaming experience? PCs should be focussed on their missions, not on browsing the local markets? If so, I’m not sure why there’s requisitioning at all then?

However, I think this could have been easily solved. Simply cost everything in ‘Imperial Credits (IC)’. This represents the value ascribed by the Administatum. Local availability could then be handled as an adjustment to the value (las-tech is rare on this world, all las weapons cost +50%). Then, whatever currency the PCs have, if it’s a ‘formal currency’ accredited by the Administratum, give it an IC value. Local economies would be able to accept all currencies and have them exchanged at the local Administratum money-changer.

PC: I’ve got 500 Calixis Thrones and 200 Meglion Delts.

GM: Yep, those are worth 400IC total at current exchange rates. Go nuts at the bazaar!

That way, a simple, intuitive, and quick resource acquisition mechanic is maintained. For other issues like bribery and other influences, the expenditure of coin could then be established by the GM as an Influence modifier.

Basically, if a core part of the RPG experience ain’t broke, why break it?

But…we didn’t get that so I’ll soldier on with the cumbersome ‘Influence roll to get some Lho sticks’.

This ramble leads me to my question: how do you use the rules for resource Influence requisition rolls in your games?

(I’ll refer you to my first statement – I’m not interested in ‘I just ignore them and let the PCs have what they want’).

The removal of costs never made any sense at all to me. Yes, I get it, there is no Imperium-wide currency. But at the same time, there are obviously going to be exchange rates, brokers and banks that will be very happy to buy your resources and sell you shillings.

Listed values should not be considered a straight-up cost in a given currency, it would be there to know the relative value of objects in relation to all other items. If a laspack and some rations are both listed as the same Availability, does that mean it's the same price? Of course not!

This isn't just in Dark Heresy 2, it's also in my ongoing Black Crusade game. I have no idea what things are supposed to cost. I have imparted the fact upon my players that the "money" they have is in no way uniform, given that they are aboard Port Wander, and it's a long array of different bank notes, cheques, value papers, gold coins and tiny silver bars, but when they ask "What can we do with this?" I am having a hard time arbitrating it's actual value.

So do I give them a bunch of Infamy (what passes for Influence in Black Crusade)? Well, they clearly have money, they won it big in the fighting pits and gambling. So can they get a gun in the Gilt Processionals/Merchant quarters? Of course they should, but how much would it cost them? I have no idea. Do I just take some of their money away? How much? Do I make them roll for everything? How come that all this money they have suddenly can't buy them a chrono, yet they can clearly get a shiny Good-Craftsmanship Bionic Arm?

The system really, really, really needs listed relative values of objects when possible. Yet it doesn't. So we're sorta stuck with this unless someone is feeling up to helping me work out a unified armoury that lists relative availability and values.

The current Influence system is pretty flawed. I still think it's possible to have a currency-less system that works well, but what we got definitely isn't it. Nimsim had some good ideas in the beta forums, might be worth digging up the threads to have a look.

One quick fix I've thought of adding is to just make it that items that would be trivial to acquire are straight up free. Laspistol charge packs shouldn't be a hard thing for an Inquisitor to get his hands on, so why bother rolling? Influence rolls should be for the big stuff.

In terms of mapping that to actual stats, I guess you could draft up a quick table with Influence bonuses. Say, something like this;

I have no idea how balanced that is because I wrote it up in about a minute, but it's worth considering. Cuts out a lot of the immersion shattering cases where you fail the roll to acquire a few autopistol bullets.

Its an interesting idea Tom, but since you just 'wrote it up in a minute', how do you use the rules as they are at the moment?

I'm interested in how to use the RAW better.

The current Influence system is pretty flawed. I still think it's possible to have a currency-less system that works well, but what we got definitely isn't it. Nimsim had some good ideas in the beta forums, might be worth digging up the threads to have a look.

One quick fix I've thought of adding is to just make it that items that would be trivial to acquire are straight up free. Laspistol charge packs shouldn't be a hard thing for an Inquisitor to get his hands on, so why bother rolling? Influence rolls should be for the big stuff.

In terms of mapping that to actual stats, I guess you could draft up a quick table with Influence bonuses. Say, something like this;

I have no idea how balanced that is because I wrote it up in about a minute, but it's worth considering. Cuts out a lot of the immersion shattering cases where you fail the roll to acquire a few autopistol bullets.

There's really no reason why an Inquisitor should have unlimited access to even Laspacks, depending on where he is and what resources he has at his disposal. But more to the issue, most people aren't Inquisitors, nor have the opportunity to flash a Rosette around, even at a barracks in some backwater world.

My idea is less "flash rosette, acquire goods" and more that the acquisition of minor, insignificant goods isn't worth focusing on mechanically or narratively; it can be glossed over. Drawing on money reserves, calling up old favours, going through a personal storehouse; the narrative explanation isn't overly important and can be ignored, to let you focus on the more engaging stuff. Shopping trips were never really my thing in RPGs.

I can totally understand if that idea doesn't sit well with people; a lot of DH fans are very attached to the low powered, penny pinching style that low level DH1e games were focused on. Personally I've never found focusing on all the fiddly gear particularly interesting, so I like the idea of assuming that a sufficiently affluent character has access to most of the gear they need. It lets you focus acquisition rolls on more significant, adventure/character defining pieces of gear.

Its an interesting idea Tom, but since you just 'wrote it up in a minute', how do you use the rules as they are at the moment?

I'm interested in how to use the RAW better.

I honestly think it's often a little hard to salvage. You will inevitably end up in situations where a failed roll just plain does not make sense. I'd say you could just handwave certain acquisitions and only focus on stuff where the risk of failure is interesting, but that's barely sticking to RAW.

One thing I would advice when dealing with the stock acquisition system is to make failure interesting . Let players fail in ways that advance the plot. Maybe your player does get that suit of sealed power armour he needs, but now he owes a major debt to an affluent Magos who doesn't like letting debts go unpayed.

That solution still doesn't really answer minor acquisitions, though. I can't imagine you're going to be put into serious debt for a lasgun charge pack.

My idea is less "flash rosette, acquire goods" and more that the acquisition of minor, insignificant goods isn't worth focusing on mechanically or narratively; it can be glossed over. Drawing on money reserves, calling up old favours, going through a personal storehouse; the narrative explanation isn't overly important and can be ignored, to let you focus on the more engaging stuff. Shopping trips were never really my thing in RPGs.

It's not about "shopping trips". It's about the fact that even if you glance it over, it happens. You don't focus on it narratively, in many cases, and hell, you might even not care that much about it mechanically, but there's only so much you can do to glance it over. It happens. The characters didn't have something. Now they have it.

How did they get it?

What did it cost?

What are their resources?

If they had a certain amount of wealth, what is that wealth now?

I can totally understand if that idea doesn't sit well with people; a lot of DH fans are very attached to the low powered, penny pinching style that low level DH1e games were focused on. Personally I've never found focusing on all the fiddly gear particularly interesting, so I like the idea of assuming that a sufficiently affluent character has access to most of the gear they need. It lets you focus acquisition rolls on more significant, adventure/character defining pieces of gear.

It's not penny-pinching and it's not "focusing on all the fiddly gear", nor is it that roleplayers find it "particularly interesting" to do so - stop misrepresenting the argument as if that's what it's about.

I realize that some people would feel more at home playing Rogue Trader, where the issue of wealth and relative values are very easily abstracted, but while such games deal with the so-called "sufficiently affluent" characters in the upper echelons of imperial society, the fact of the matter is that the vast majority in the Imperium does not belong to these social classes, and to a large amount of fully reasonable scenarios, the resources of Acolytes (such as in Dark Heresy) or Heretics (such as in Black Crusade) is incredibly relevant, whether they're trying to keep a low profile, have arrived somewhere destitute, or simply lack connections and leverage.

To tie this back to my own ongoing campaign in Black Crusade. They started with the entry adventure, Broken Chains. At that point in the story, they are released - naked - as prisoners aboard an imperial prison barge that has been lost in the warp for 200 years. Again, this is not an unreasonable scenario, and it's the official starting scenario supplied by FFG themselves. They are, in a nutshell, destitute.

After getting out of there, they are deposited near Port Wander. This, again, is a completely reasonable scenario, Port Wander being a good starting point at it's position between Sector Calixis, the Screaming Vortex and the Koronus Expanse. At this point, how do you represent their wealth? This is not focusing on "penny pinching" or us as roleplayers finding it "particularly interesting" "focusing on all the fiddly gear".

In this completely reasonable scenario, there are unreasonable difficulties in matching the factual narrative with the abstracted mechanics. It doesn't add it. I've been trying to abstract it as much as possible. One of them went out to get a safe, I let him immediately find a safe, glanced over the cost, it was reasonable, it was cheap considering their winnings. But at what point is their "reasonably large winnings" transformed into an "unreasonable amount of goods and services"?

And if they are, as you say, "sufficiently affluent", what is stopping them from simply spreading that wealth around? At what point is it reasonable to say "No, you don't have money for that thing" when it's reasonable to say "Sure, get 10 safes and 100 backpacks". Infamy in Black Crusade, or Influence in Dark Heresy 2, sure as hell doesn't do the situation justice. And if you stick to the rolls, it truly does become focusing on the penny-pinching.

Listed values would have given a much-needed finger-pointer on relative values of goods and services in given locales. It would have given you an idea of the cost of rations relative to a laspistol. This is already how Availability works, specifically, and the books say time and time again that it's just a relative value for the GM to adjust.

Why is this so unreasonable of a request in regards to Costs and Values, then? That way, when it doesn't matter, we can all disregard it - "You have enough, no problem, you get a watch, it costs so little it doesn't matter" - and when it does matter, say, "No, you can't possibly afford to buy an entire ship at the moment, just forget about it." you can make it matter.

When you are playing a wealthy noble, you can just disregard the fact that laspistols cost money, because you have an abstracted wealth far above that. When you are playing a scum down in the underhives, a cell of acolytes trying to stay undercover, or a group of heretics that are essentially destitute, you can go "You estimate your current wealth to be about 1000 Thrones, it's a mess of bank notes and value papers, so it's hard to know exactly. Spend it wisely."

Stop misrepresenting the argument and start realizing that adding the relative value of goods and services in relation to each other would be a valuable option for the GM to play with, similar to all other tables and all other information in the books. Calling it penny-pinching and focusing on badwrongfun, you might as well decide that noting Availability or Amount is just as needless. After all, what does it matter? We're all sufficiently affluent.

A watch, some rations, a crate of laspistols and a fleet of warships, it's all bloody relative (and relevant!) to the situation.

Edit: In Black Crusade, there's actually a Talent, called Excessive Wealth (available at 40 Infamy). It gives +10 to Infamy for Acquisition Tests. When two of my players became exceedingly wealthy (relatively speaking) from gambling and fighting on Port Wander, I considered giving it to them. But I found myself thinking, would this be reasonable? How wealthy are they, relatively speaking? I knew the exact amount of thrones I gave them, each. After comparing to prices in Dark Heresy to get an idea of how wealthy they were, I realized that I had given them way too much, and they could probably buy parts of the station with it (I think I threw out the idea of 400,000 Thrones total).

But after mulling it over for a while, I found that I had absolutely no idea if that would be appropriate or not. And if so, when would I take it away? When they're down to 200k? 100k? I still have absolutely no clue. Now, if any one of them ever gets that Talent, I'll work something out with them and I'll just pretend that they are "sufficiently affluent" whenever the issue of wealth comes up unless they are somehow cut off from that wealth (which is an entirely reasonable thing to expect!). But apart from that? No clue whatsoever. The value of a Baleful Eye relative to a pack of rations? No clue. 10 Thrones? 500 000 thrones?

Is a Power Sword more valuable than a Lasgun? Prove it.

I don't think I've ever seen someone have so much trouble with abstraction.

Is a Power Sword more valuable than a Lasgun? Prove it.

In your mind, how does the availability modifier (Very Rare vs Common) not cover this?

The characters didn't have something. Now they have it.

How did they get it?
What did it cost?
What are their resources?
If they had a certain amount of wealth, what is that wealth now?

I think a more important question in this situation would be, Is it narratively interesting to spend time answering these other questions?

It's not about "shopping trips". It's about the fact that even if you glance it over, it happens. You don't focus on it narratively, in many cases, and hell, you might even not care that much about it mechanically, but there's only so much you can do to glance it over. It happens. The characters didn't have something. Now they have it.

How did they get it?

What did it cost?

What are their resources?

If they had a certain amount of wealth, what is that wealth now?

Before I ask any of these questions, I ask one very important question. "Is it going to significantly impact the campaign if I just gloss over these questions?"

Usually the answer is no, when it comes to minor acquisitions. This is largely because I prefer a narrativist style of play. It's pretty clear you prefer something more simulationist, and that's fine, but you're not going to somehow prove me wrong by continuing to repeat the same points in big thousand word long essays.

Also, for people looking for Throne prices, I'd suggest looking at the prices in the Macharian Handbook. Most gear in DH2e has appeared in earlier books in some fashion, so the costs should be easy to port over.

One thing I would advice when dealing with the stock acquisition system is to make failure interesting . Let players fail in ways that advance the plot. Maybe your player does get that suit of sealed power armour he needs, but now he owes a major debt to an affluent Magos who doesn't like letting debts go unpayed.

Thats a very interesting idea Tom. Its turning a tedious mechanic into something of a risk. I'll give it some consideration. IT does mean that something the players should basically do in their downtime, becomes a potential distraction though...

But as you say, it still doesn't get over the problem of having to roll for each little sundry item you're trying to acquire.

As far as i can see so far, there aren't even RAW to aggregate your acquisitions into say a 'bulk buy' requisition.

e.g.

Players: OK, we need a fuelled truck, 4 boiler suits, 60lb of explosives, 4 lasguns + 24 laspacks, false IDs for everyone, glowrods, aaaand a multikey to bust the lock.

GM: Right, group Influence to requisition that lot.

Players: OK, failed by 1 DoF

GM: 6 hours later you assemble, with everything except the false IDs, oh and Marius could only rustle up 30lb of democharge putty.

As far as i can see, you're looking at a mass of Influence rolls there to get through all that.

Anyone else found a good way to make the requisition RAW work for their group?

It's not about "shopping trips". It's about the fact that even if you glance it over, it happens. You don't focus on it narratively, in many cases, and hell, you might even not care that much about it mechanically, but there's only so much you can do to glance it over. It happens. The characters didn't have something. Now they have it.

How did they get it?

What did it cost?

What are their resources?

If they had a certain amount of wealth, what is that wealth now?

Before I ask any of these questions, I ask one very important question. "Is it going to significantly impact the campaign if I just gloss over these questions?"

Usually the answer is no, when it comes to minor acquisitions. This is largely because I prefer a narrativist style of play. It's pretty clear you prefer something more simulationist, and that's fine, but you're not going to somehow prove me wrong by continuing to repeat the same points in big thousand word long essays.

Also, for people looking for Throne prices, I'd suggest looking at the prices in the Macharian Handbook. Most gear in DH2e has appeared in earlier books in some fashion, so the costs should be easy to port over.

The thing is, to gloss over these questions, I need to have a frame of reference, or at least be able to narrate it when relevant. I too gloss these over, as I explained, I even cited specific examples. However, there are many times this is not possible, for various reasons, which I also cited examples of.

And no, I prefer a narrativist style of play. And part of that narrative is being able to actually narrate plot points in a relevant fashion, establishing whether they are rich and poor, and the consequences thereof in a meaningful fashion.

A meaningful expenditure hinges on a wide variety of factors. A lot of the time, this can simply be ignored quite safely, depending on the situation. But relative wealth is relative to what is going on in the narrative.

No-one actually cares about the cost of a Chrono. But clearly, you're going to have to care about the acquisition of a civilian-grade Salamander.

As an example, in a system of Influence or Infamy, assuming the players have gotten their hands on a military-grade Salamander while being dirt-poor, if they try to sell it and have the contacts to do so, how would you reward your players? Honest question. It hasn't come up in my game yet, but it's a distinct possibility and an example of something they might've tried to do.

Bonus to Infamy? Doesn't work, because in Black Crusade, Infamy is tied into other mechanics. But assuming that you'd do it just for Acquisitions, how much? +1? +5? Assuming DH2, bonus to Influence? Why on Earth would your effective Influence increase because you cart off a Salamander to some scum? And assuming that you still choose to, sure, let's give them a bonus anyway, logic and the idea behind these scores be damned. Does that bonus carry with them? Does their "Infamy" carry with them to the next station, even though they are not infamous at all, there? Assuming DH2, does their Influence? Over a planet-hop, how do you excuse it, in a narrative sense?

It's not "simulationist". It's narrative. How do you narrate this to make any sense? Or do you simply have objects appear or disappear at will, show up in their inventory when they ask if they can have it, make it disappear.. never, because who are we kidding, players would never throw anything away if they know they have it.

Because that has nothing to do with narrative vs. simulationist. That's simply terrible storytelling. Based on your argument, every noble is poor at your leisure, and every scum somehow a rogue trader by your decree. Wealthy when it suits you, poor when it doesn't, power swords or laspacks, who cares, it's penny-pinching and bean-counting.

Again, what people want is not a hard system of thrones, or anything that suggests that there's a unified currency, or a system that ends up giving the players whatever they point at when they have enough thrones (as was a common issue to many a lax GM in DH1, apparently). It's a listed general value relative to the value of other things, in order to be able to represent wealth or lack thereof.

This is a system that would solve a lot of issues with completely reasonable scenarios and issues that arise in narrative styles of play, while changing absolutely nothing for those characters that are in a position where abstraction makes perfect sense.

It would help a lot of GM:s that prefer to have an idea of value and the group's effective wealth in order to narrate their situation, while changing absolutely nothing for those that don't care, such as yourself.

Really, the opposition to such a simple addition to the system that would detract absolutely nothing from the style of play of those that would not use it, for whatever reason, is flabbergasting.

One thing I would advice when dealing with the stock acquisition system is to make failure interesting . Let players fail in ways that advance the plot. Maybe your player does get that suit of sealed power armour he needs, but now he owes a major debt to an affluent Magos who doesn't like letting debts go unpayed.

Thats a very interesting idea Tom. Its turning a tedious mechanic into something of a risk. I'll give it some consideration. IT does mean that something the players should basically do in their downtime, becomes a potential distraction though...

But as you say, it still doesn't get over the problem of having to roll for each little sundry item you're trying to acquire.

As far as i can see so far, there aren't even RAW to aggregate your acquisitions into say a 'bulk buy' requisition.

e.g.

Players: OK, we need a fuelled truck, 4 boiler suits, 60lb of explosives, 4 lasguns + 24 laspacks, false IDs for everyone, glowrods, aaaand a multikey to bust the lock.

GM: Right, group Influence to requisition that lot.

Players: OK, failed by 1 DoF

GM: 6 hours later you assemble, with everything except the false IDs, oh and Marius could only rustle up 30lb of democharge putty.

As far as i can see, you're looking at a mass of Influence rolls there to get through all that.

Anyone else found a good way to make the requisition RAW work for their group?

There is no such way. If your group wants to go out and do that, the way you just described it is a good (although boring, but I get that you were trying to illustrate a point) way to handle it.

One of the issues with the system is that it's hard to get a good approximation of what would be appropriate. But apart from what you described, I can't envision another way to handle it, if you are trying to stay remotely true to RAW.

But RAW is RAW. There's no way to solve the issues you present and "make the requisition RAW" work for the group in a good fashion, without resorting to Rule 0 (which is still technically RAW).

What you could do count all the various Acquisitions together and then make the one roll count for all of the total modified target values, but at that point, you really might just as well roll separately for each distinct item.

For most of this, I'd simply narrate the way they acquire it, have them roll their Influence (or in my current game, Infamy) to see how well they're doing on trying to acquire the stuff, and then quickly narrate what happens and how well they do.

If you choose to play the RAW of Acquisitions close to the vest, it's always going to be a mess, and it's been a mess since Post-DH1 (which had it's own issues, with people counting coppers and then thinking they could get anything anywhere at listed value as long as they found it). At the same time, if you just gloss over it completely, it's utterly uninteresting to just hand them whatever they need at any point, no matter where they are, just because you can't be bothered by the system or making sense.

And narrating each individual acquisition of piecemeal equipment is a horrifying thought, if the players choose to attempt to acquire a good number of items or objects.

As it is right now, unless FFG changes their stance - which is unlikely now that DH2 is live - you're just going to have to wing it and try to ballpark. Good luck with establishing an effective frame of reference in a down-low or lower-class scenario, though.

I quite liked the look of DH2 but I was somewhat dismayed that they got rid of Credits altogether and replaced it with Influence. I think this mechanic works for Deathwatch (through requisition) and Rogue Trader (through Profit Factor) but Dark Heresy works on such a low level for much of the game that it does need a granular approach, your influence can be quantifiably measured.

In other words in Rogue Traders your Dynasty might have thousands of individual contacts scattered across a dozen worlds and the Rogue Trader himself might only know the names of the key players so PF is more practical.

But an Acolyte probably only knows one or two key people in a city and has a couple of areas they can pull rank (i.e when dealing with Arbites or Enforcers) and thats it. In other words it can all be roleplayed, In fact in some ways the stat 'Influence' is the game.

So to come back to your original post, I would continue to use money in my games when the PCs want to buy a specific item and use Influence rolls when the PCs want to use who they are to requisition something that can't be merely bought.

For example buying a single chrono would be money

Getting the services of an Arbite Squad for the day (to raid a heretics stronghold for example) would be Influence.

Some items may be Influence on one world but money on another

For example a power sword on a Feral World would likely require requesting it from an Imperial official such as a cleric or Adeptus Soritas based on the planet and thus be Influence.

Equally on a world outside the borders of the Imperium in the Halo stars the rulers may not care who you are back within the Light of Emperor, here if you want the police to do anything you pay for it. This would be money over Influence.

That would be my take anyway.

The real problem is what happens when you need something and fail your roll. That can't happen with coins.

In Black Crusde you had to wait until you next succeeded an (Infamy) roll before you got to try for that particular purchase again. Don't know if that's the case here.

I don't mind the idea at all. Not sure how it works in practice; what happens when you're influence is high enough you can't fail to get an Exterminatus on demand?

The real problem is what happens when you need something and fail your roll. That can't happen with coins.

In Black Crusde you had to wait until you next succeeded an (Infamy) roll before you got to try for that particular purchase again. Don't know if that's the case here.

I don't mind the idea at all. Not sure how it works in practice; what happens when you're influence is high enough you can't fail to get an Exterminatus on demand?

Then you've won the game. Exterminatus Terra and usurp the throne.

I never hesitated to housrule Q'Sal soul crystals and slaves as a currency in BC, using infamy rolls and circumstances to modify base price ("Of course, most chosen one, we don't have much of those techno-miracles still working, but you will have them in no time for a mere..."). Never did it cause any trouble for my players, and I see zero reasons to stick to the rules when I get myself a DH2.

Requisition Tests, as explained on page 142-143, are actually pretty fluid.

Roll Influence, modified by Availability with Ubiquitous items ALWAYS available without a roll.
Weapons come with 2 clips standard ammunition, plus one per degree of success.
Single use items (Explosives, Drugs, etc.) are one plus one per degree of success.

Location modifiers are options the GM can choose to apply based on economy and such.

It is possible to trade in more valuable/rarer items to boost Influence rolls for other items.

As to "failing a roll can not happen with coins," you still had to test against availability in 1st Edition to FIND the item before you could spend your hard-earned Throne Gelt.

No system is perfect. Let the mechanics guide you, not railroad your game.

-=Brother Praetus=-

Requisition Tests, as explained on page 142-143, are actually pretty fluid.

Roll Influence, modified by Availability with Ubiquitous items ALWAYS available without a roll.

Weapons come with 2 clips standard ammunition, plus one per degree of success.

Single use items (Explosives, Drugs, etc.) are one plus one per degree of success.

Location modifiers are options the GM can choose to apply based on economy and such.

It is possible to trade in more valuable/rarer items to boost Influence rolls for other items.

As to "failing a roll can not happen with coins," you still had to test against availability in 1st Edition to FIND the item before you could spend your hard-earned Throne Gelt.

No system is perfect. Let the mechanics guide you, not railroad your game.

-=Brother Praetus=-

The problem was never that Influence wasn't fluid, it's that it plain doesn't make sense in a great many scenarios, even assuming that you strangely botch rolls that you shouldn't, while others go through like nothing.

with Ubiquitous items ALWAYS available without a roll.

It's a shame there's literally zero ubiquitous items in the entire book. Assuming nothing's changed since beta, that is. I haven't got my hands on a copy of the released book quite yet, living in Australia is suffering.

I absolutely hate having to keep track of hard currency in games that are not about treasure hunting. It's completely immersion-breaking- in DH1 , Inquisitorial Acolyte's ability to fight the enemies of the Emperor hinges on hording coins- seriously?!

I haven't used the new system yet (I have a DH1 campaign to finish up before I switch to DH2 ), but it sounds like most of the opposition is based on the word 'Influence', as if that can only represent flashing badges and yelling "I'm with the Inquisition, gimme stuff!", rather than being an abstraction of 'having whatever is needed in this particular situation: cash, credit, negotiable commodities, etc'.

I absolutely hate having to keep track of hard currency in games that are not about treasure hunting. It's completely immersion-breaking- in DH1 , Inquisitorial Acolyte's ability to fight the enemies of the Emperor hinges on hording coins- seriously?!

I haven't used the new system yet (I have a DH1 campaign to finish up before I switch to DH2 ), but it sounds like most of the opposition is based on the word 'Influence', as if that can only represent flashing badges and yelling "I'm with the Inquisition, gimme stuff!", rather than being an abstraction of 'having whatever is needed in this particular situation: cash, credit, negotiable commodities, etc'.

No, it's neither abstraction nor word choice which bugs me. It's the sheer unpredictability of the ruleset - why yesterday I bought myself a plasma gun on a forge world but today I rolled really low and my GM struggles to explain how exactly i ended up without laspistol on a planet which arms entire army groups.

The issue with frequency of acquisition tests has been mentioned and it is still there.

I've admittedly been skimming, but I agree that the influence rules fail to really cover mundane purchases. I like the rule for automatic acquisitions at certain influence bonuses. I don't get why people assume this means people could suddenly get infinite items that way. A character could get infinite items by just rolling influence over and over. Have players roll against item availability to find things. If it's something they could definitely find, then have failure just cause it to take longer than normal.

Selling an item is definitely something that would need to be house ruled. As far as I know, the old DH didnt account for that either, though, did it?

That avaliability can go up with each subsequent item the recieve though.

I absolutely hate having to keep track of hard currency in games that are not about treasure hunting. It's completely immersion-breaking- in DH1 , Inquisitorial Acolyte's ability to fight the enemies of the Emperor hinges on hording coins- seriously?!

I haven't used the new system yet (I have a DH1 campaign to finish up before I switch to DH2 ), but it sounds like most of the opposition is based on the word 'Influence', as if that can only represent flashing badges and yelling "I'm with the Inquisition, gimme stuff!", rather than being an abstraction of 'having whatever is needed in this particular situation: cash, credit, negotiable commodities, etc'.

Without listed values, you have no idea what the relative value of objects are. You have no frames of reference whatsoever in that regard, and there's a host of situations that you simply can't handle believably in a narrative.

Some people seem to think that this is an "either or" situation, but it's not. There's no inherent opposition. Listing values affects the abstract method and those preferring to handwave it in absolutely zero ways, while giving those of us that feel it necessary to do so under certain circumstances the ability to do so.

with Ubiquitous items ALWAYS available without a roll.

It's a shame there's literally zero ubiquitous items in the entire book. Assuming nothing's changed since beta, that is. I haven't got my hands on a copy of the released book quite yet, living in Australia is suffering.

Why waste space on describing pens and sewing needle, after all?

It's funny that they'd mention something in the rules that doesn't exist by the book, since FFG's stance seems to always be that each line is meant to be self-contained. Classic FFG. I remember in Black Crusade, where you can end up spawning a bunch of nurglings.. and there's no stats for nurglings in all of Black Crusade, even now.

I remember in Black Crusade, where you can end up spawning a bunch of nurglings.. and there's no stats for nurglings in all of Black Crusade, even now.

Even with the Tome of Rot?

I remember in Black Crusade, where you can end up spawning a bunch of nurglings.. and there's no stats for nurglings in all of Black Crusade, even now.

Even with the Tome of Rot?

However, it turns out I was wrong in my earlier comment! Tome of Decay does indeed have nurglings!

All rejoice, for you are chosen by the great powers! Rejoice for you are the pious! Rejoice, all!