I have to agree with AtoMaki, about the Hacking mini game: you want to keep it really short and sweet, like about 3 to 5 diffrent test/rolls that might give bonuses and penalties on last roll to see if the hack was succesfull.

Otherwhise you get the Cyberpunk thing where the decker would go on his solo adventure in the matrix and the rest of the players stood around doing nothing and getting bored, or have to play bodyguard to the decker when the corp security forces show up and start shooting at him- in wich case the GM is now running two adventures simultaniously decker in the matrix and combat in the real world. Neither of these two cases is ideal.

I wholeheartedly agree with the two above posters.

Combat can be complex and long and engaging and whatnot because it involves everyone. Skill minigames on the other hand? That's just 1 guy.

Perhaps taking a page from Shadowrun might be worth a shot here? The new edition has streamlined decking by cutting down on the whole "matrix dive" approach, limiting the tests and descriptions involved whilst still offering a modicum of specialised actions.

It is worth noting that in the system, characteristic advancements are capped at a certain characteristic level rather than number of advancement levels. IIRC, 60 was the maximum characteristic for everyone, and you could take advancements until you reached this level.

Oh, that must be a change to DH1 that slipped past by me. Though in retrospect it makes sense, as I recall it being similar in OW and BC? #itsbeenawhile

Not sure I like caps being similar for everyone. Stereotyping musn't be a bad thing if it's kept to certain limits - I'd rather have, say, Catachans being stereotypically stronger than everyone else because I feel that stuff like this adds to the atmosphere. Besides, even with stereotyping, it's not like characters cannot still be unique. "Everything in moderation", as they say.

In my book, 'Catachans are stronger than everybody else' is fine if it means 'the average Catachan is stronger than the average anythimg else' but totally not fine if it means 'no matter how hard you try, even if you are the strongest anything else in history, you're still not as strong as the average Catachan'. At that point you're practically making a call for the players (you have to play Catachan if you want to be strong).

Ah, but that's why there is an overlap! If said average Catachan doesn't invest any XP into Strength, it's their fault when they get surpassed by someone else who does.

To me, it'd be more about "the strongest Catachan is stronger than the strongest Valhallan". So if someone wants to be the strongest ever, then Catachan should be the most obvious option, as it's kind of their thing. A bit like selecting your archetype at the beginning of a campaign! Basically, not just determining how you start out, but also how you end up - though the latter should matter less than the former (lending more importance on what happens during your campaign and how you develop your character).

To me, it'd be more about "the strongest Catachan is stronger than the strongest Valhallan". So if someone wants to be the strongest ever, then Catachan should be the most obvious option, as it's kind of their thing. A bit like selecting your archetype at the beginning of a campaign! Basically, not just determining how you start out, but also how you end up - though the latter should matter less than the former (lending more importance on what happens during your campaign and how you develop your character).

We drew the line on the "Human" level, rather than getting down to "Catachan/Valhallan/Krieg/Whatever Human" territory.

Also, on hacking: there is a very good method floating somewhere around here ( maybe in the DH1 section? ), that has three kinds of hacking (Indirect Remote, Indirect Proxy, Direct) with decreasing difficulty but increasing risk for back-tracing, and three steps (find entry point, hack the system, enslave the system). We use a slightly modified version in our custom setting with a dedicated Cyberspace-Use Skill, and it works pretty nicely.

Edit: Found it!

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/70403-warhammer-40k-technology-summary-and-hacking-rules-your-heretek-will-love-you-for-it/

13 pages and the original poster hasn't commented again...

I smell a troll. A successful one at that.

13 pages and the original poster hasn't commented again...

I smell a troll. A successful one at that.

I dunno, not enough people are angry. I liked that guy who complained about netrunner being about nothing but criminals and racial steriotying better...

I doubt a troll. Is there really any reason for him to have commented?

13 pages and the original poster hasn't commented again...

I smell a troll. A successful one at that.

I remember the OP from the Beta Forums. He was an outspoken supporter of the first Beta.

Make of that what you will.

13 pages and the original poster hasn't commented again...

I smell a troll. A successful one at that.

I remember the OP from the Beta Forums. He was an outspoken supporter of the first Beta.

Make of that what you will.

First beta was pretty neat. Just needs fixing. Which we did. We still play it.

Just needs fixing.

Which is what they tried, and part of the community didn't think it was being fixed fast enough nor effectively enough, which is why it was eventually scrapped.

First beta was pretty neat. Just needs fixing. Which we did. We still play it.

It had it's good points, but it didn't address the core problems with the WH40KRP system.

First beta was pretty neat. Just needs fixing. Which we did. We still play it.

It had it's good points, but it didn't address the core problems with the WH40KRP system.

Yeah, at this point, what we play is pretty much a conglomerate of stuff from all the systems we like, rather than a single one. We took plenty of stuff from TDE, BRP/CoC and the combat system from DH2, beta 1.

Though some would say certain core problems still remain ...

But again: it's impossible to make everyone happy. Ironically, I'm not sure if the current iteration of DH2 is subjectively better for me than the first Beta, because even though they are very different from one another, both have different things that I like, different things that I dislike, some same things that I like, and some same things that I dislike.

But, this being a P&P, fortunately we have the option to change and adjust as we see fit, as long as we are willing to devote the time and energy.

It's so strange that the most popular threads on the forum are people unhappy with the new system. And proponents arguing that it's not THAT BAD. And that FFG barely gave it any Con time or marketing support compared to other releases this year.

Why's that strange? People like complaining about new things, some will come to the defense of it.

I was perplexed that it never really saw the spotlight at Gencon. Sad stuff.

It was all about Star Wars this and Star Wars that.

Though some would say certain core problems still remain ...

That was my point: the structural problems with WH40KRP have never been corrected, merely tweaked slightly at best, and Beta1 was absolutely no exception. Since none of the systems on the table during beta testing really attempted to fix the core problems, 'familiarity' and 'compatibility' become viable considerations about which version of the system to support.

Hence, I'm a moderate supporter of DH2 as is, while acknowledging that it could have been much, much better (and Beta1 was not that 'much, much better' system).

It's so strange that the most popular threads on the forum are people unhappy with the new system. And proponents arguing that it's not THAT BAD. And that FFG barely gave it any Con time or marketing support compared to other releases this year.

Having followed the beta process from day one, I wouldn't use the word "strange". The chain of events leading up to the present day was pretty strange, as far as my experience with open beta processes go, but the current state of things is a natural consequence of that process.

Wow... I've thought that you can't make a worse game than DH 1Ed, but FFG once again proves me wrong. DH2 looks actually even worse than it predecessor. Once again we have invincible accolytes, overly complicated combat system, chasing after "teh best gun evah" in every game and a horrible skill gaining system. What the frag FFG? Maybe stick to making overpriced, but at least decently made, board games?

Once again we have invincible accolytes, overly complicated combat system, chasing after "teh best gan evah" in every game and a horrible skill gaining system. What the frag FFG? Maybe stick to making overpriced, but at least decently made, board games?

Prove to me they're invincible.

Combat system is smoother than 1st ed in every way I've seen.

Is gan ork for gun or something? Even then they aren't chasing them there's a requisition system you use.

How is the skill advancement horrible? Even then there are less skills than before.

Invincible acolytes?

Everything goes as it is led. On the top of my head, it sounds much more like poor GMing than anything else.

I can still beat high "level" PCS with stub revolvers, frag grenades and surprise. You know, the stuff that always work...

Wow... I've thought that you can't make a worse game than DH 1Ed, but FFG once again proves me wrong. DH2 looks actually even worse than it predecessor. Once again we have invincible accolytes, overly complicated combat system, chasing after "teh best gan evah" in every game and a horrible skill gaining system. What the frag FFG? Maybe stick to making overpriced, but at least decently made, board games?

I'm not sure what the contribution is of that post in this thread. I understand the other people who dislike DH2.0 because they actually provided clear points. This post is just borderline trolling.

NO player character is invincible to a proper GM.

Remember the old adage of " if you stat it they will kill it "?

Well guess what player characters are made of?

They have stats; you can kill them.

Or failing that, collapse the multiiverse on them.