I'll get back to HappyDaze tonight when I have my PDF on me, but it seems like the whole money thing could have been rectified by a single table/paragraph describing thrones as currency and giving costs for things like X thrones to buy a small firearm, X thrones to bribe a low level person, etc.

But just because things have a monetary value doesn't mean that they can be sold. Used items, particularly firearms without proof of purchase, are hard to sell! And then you only get a fraction of the value.

If you have to trade in 2-3 guns to get one new one, more if it is an expensive model, and there are consequences when you sell them to shady dealers, then I'm not so sure that your party would just sell everything.

The problem with actually having monetary value for stuff is that, once selling stuff starts having value, odds are players will start looting. I just have a hard time imagining a bunch of acolytes (or worse, an Inquisitor) asking around for customers for the 10 shotguns and 5 sets of Flak armor they have acquired in their last mission.

I'm fine with that. People selling weapons on the street (probably illegally to boot) is a session that basically writes itself...

Graviton Guns are near unique if I remember right, they aren't for no names.

They are "just" Extremely Rare. It is actually pretty easy to get one with a good Commerce Skill or if you are OK with a Poor quality version.

So they still have to try. They aren't just given to schmuks even then they aren't impressive versions of the weaponry.

You have to try to get anything, even a lowly autogun.

For those that don't like the RAW........

1.Why did you buy the book when you knew basically what you were getting with the revised OW rules?

2.Name me ONE rpg out there that doesn't have its flaws?I haven't found the magical unicorn of RPG's yet so personally i tailor it to my needs.

3.Is the game that unplayable for you?

I'm not starting any arguements.I'm really interested in hearing some responses from the naysayer's concerning my questions.Looking forward to some peoples answers in particular.Thanks.

You have to try to get anything, even a lowly autogun.

I don't know what weapons you wield but autoguns are scary in just about any situation.

For those that don't like the RAW........

1.Why did you buy the book when you knew basically what you were getting with the revised OW rules?

2.Name me ONE rpg out there that doesn't have its flaws?I haven't found the magical unicorn of RPG's yet so personally i tailor it to my needs.

3.Is the game that unplayable for you?

1. I didn't.

2. Played DSA4e for ten years, RAW, never had any problems.

3. No, but it's more work to adapt to my group than I'm willing to pay such a price for.

You have to try to get anything, even a lowly autogun.

I don't know what weapons you wield but autoguns are scary in just about any situation.

My current character's main weapon is an Assault Pulser with a Hybrid Combat Sight/Battle Scope, Angled Grip, Redlight Targeter, Accelerator Rails, Quick-Change Front Secondary Magazine, Echo Dispenser, Magnetron Booster and Ammo Fabricator. I wouldn't touch an autogun with another man's ten feet pole .

Nimsim, would you give me a few specific examples of unviable choices?

Example 1)

You have two skills, one (we'll call it skill A) with zero matching aptitudes and the other with 2 matching aptitudes (skill B). Both of these skill increases offer an equal amount of utility (+10 chance for the player to affect the game through play). So right away skill B becomes an unviable choice because skill A offers the same benefit for 1/3 of the cost. Before you say that "some skills will be really important to the player," keep in mind that it's equally likely that Skill A will be the important one as Skill B. Given that, we can essentially cancel out that variable (how much a player wants a skill), because the chance of the player wanting the cheaper skill cancels out the chance of the player wanting the expensive skill. Thus, Skill A becomes an unviable choice in the abstract.

Example 2)

You have two Tier 3 Talents. Talent A has zero matching aptitudes and Talent B has two matching aptitudes. Again, both of these Talents are of roughly equal utility, both being placed at tier 3. Again, player preference for the talent is cancelled out due to it being equally likely for either Talent A or Talent B. And again, Talent A becomes the worse choice, due to costing 3 times as much for a roughly equal benefit. As a worse choice, it is labeled as a dominated strategy, and thus becomes unviable in comparison to better strategies.

Example 3)

I figure you want a non-abstract example, even though the above examples serve perfectly well. Let's take a Feral World Homeworld, Adeptus Administratum Background, and Warrior Role (I chose this from the odd character concepts thread). Your aptitudes are:

Toughness

Knowledge

Ballistic Skill

Defence

Offence

Strength

Weapon Skill

And let's compare investing points in something like Awareness at rank 1 versus Parry at rank 1. Awareness has zero matching aptitudes, and will cost 300xp. Parry has 2 matching aptitudes, and will cost 100xp. The player could buy 2 ranks of parry for the cost of 1 rank of awareness, gaining twice the effectiveness. He could also buy a rank in parry and a rank in any skill he has 1 matching aptitude for. Awareness becomes an unviable skill choice in comparison to all of these other skills, because it will always be a worse choice for increasing player agency. It also doesn't matter in this discussion how often a GM has those skills come up. For every GM that has players roll dozens of Awareness checks, there is one who never has them come up. Thus, we cancel out that variable.

For those that don't like the RAW........

1.Why did you buy the book when you knew basically what you were getting with the revised OW rules?

2.Name me ONE rpg out there that doesn't have its flaws?I haven't found the magical unicorn of RPG's yet so personally i tailor it to my needs.

3.Is the game that unplayable for you?

I'm not starting any arguements.I'm really interested in hearing some responses from the naysayer's concerning my questions.Looking forward to some peoples answers in particular.Thanks.

Almost every RPG has a serious flaw, but that isn't important. The important part is that most RPGs don't have 40k content.

My current character's main weapon is an Assault Pulser with a Hybrid Combat Sight/Battle Scope, Angled Grip, Redlight Targeter, Accelerator Rails, Quick-Change Front Secondary Magazine, Echo Dispenser, Magnetron Booster and Ammo Fabricator. I wouldn't touch an autogun with another man's ten feet pole .

Never thought I'd hear that many descriptors for a weapon but la dee dah that's bully for you.

Not so many acolytes can count themselves so lucky. Autoguns are functional and useful in just about any situation. They don't need a bunch of things on them to function.

Back in DH1, my acolyte's usual kit was an autogun or pistol, a silencer, red dot sight and a hunting rifle. And literally any nearby vehicle. Underpowered scum needs his force multipliers, ooooh yeah

Back in DH1, my acolyte's usual kit was an autogun or pistol, a silencer, red dot sight and a hunting rifle. And literally any nearby vehicle. Underpowered scum needs his force multipliers, ooooh yeah

Grand Teft Landraider!

Back in DH1, my acolyte's usual kit was an autogun or pistol, a silencer, red dot sight and a hunting rifle. And literally any nearby vehicle. Underpowered scum needs his force multipliers, ooooh yeah

Grand Teft Landraider!

Never even saw one. Did flatten part of an army with ballistic kamikaze driving in a chimera, though.

Nimsim,

You basically create your own class from the start, the branch you'll go into. Certain decisions have already been made, BUT it's still possible to get certain talents or skills for instance but at a higher price, if you so desire.

Basically you're complaining that as a wizard you can't swing a sword as good, or wear plate armor as good compared to a warrior. Well boohoo. In certain cases, it might be interesting to take something outside of your field of expertise, in other cases perhaps not. Perhaps you should have made a spellsword instead of a wizard as a class?

Yes, certain choices might not be all that viable for your character. Is it an oversight of the system, a bug, etc? I doubt it.

I actually consider it to be part of its flexibility, not a flaw, or a shortcoming or anything.

That's my view on it.

You might say, "But new people have to think so far ahead when they create their character then". Well, the book itself recommends playing with the more standard character creation options first (e.g. Forgeworld - Adeptus Mechanicus - Sage) before moving to more exotic combinations. Notice that there are choice recommendations in each step of the Character creation process.

Not so many acolytes can count themselves so lucky. Autoguns are functional and useful in just about any situation. They don't need a bunch of things on them to function.

So are Assault Pulsers (they are handheld rapid-firing railguns). Those attachments only give them a +41 bonus to BS, infinite primary ammo, and the option to either increase Suppression effect or greatly decrease weapon noise.

To get this sweet baby, I only had to make the right favor to the right man, then land on the right planet and flash the right papers in the right place. EZ. I even got some bonus for not showing the papers upside-down .

It also doesn't matter in this discussion how often a GM has those skills come up. For every GM that has players roll dozens of Awareness checks, there is one who never has them come up. Thus, we cancel out that variable.

It actually matters a lot, because at a given moment, you're never playing a hypothetical perfectly average DH2 campaign with a perfectly average DH2 GM making perfectly average rulings. You're playing a specific campaign, with a specific focus, ran by a specific GM with a specific attitude towards the rules, and all that stuff will have much greater impact on your decisions than any statistical model can account for.

Note that the character creation gives you a lot of say as to which advancements will be mathematically viable and which won't, much more so than the charts of the earlier games, as here your final cost for all things is derived from three discrete choices, whereas in DH1 you were committed to one career path. Note that this gives you ample opportunity to "optimize" your future experience in accord with the nature of the campaign and the quirks of the GM, and unless you choose the GM for each session by drawing straws and having him run premade adventures pulled out of a hat, you should easily have enough info to make informed choices during character creation. Thus, in a specific situation, the "issue" is usually not nearly as dire as your abstracted math makes it look.

Remember, a professor of statistics once drowned in a lake that was statistically knee deep...

Nimsim,

You basically create your own class from the start, the branch you'll go into. Certain decisions have already been made, BUT it's still possible to get certain talents or skills for instance but at a higher price, if you so desire.

Basically you're complaining that as a wizard you can't swing a sword as good, or wear plate armor as good compared to a warrior. Well boohoo. In certain cases, it might be interesting to take something outside of your field of expertise, in other cases perhaps not. Perhaps you should have made a spellsword instead of a wizard as a class?

Yes, certain choices might not be all that viable for your character. Is it an oversight of the system, a bug, etc? I doubt it.

I actually consider it to be part of its flexibility, not a flaw, or a shortcoming or anything.

That's my view on it.

You might say, "But new people have to think so far ahead when they create their character then". Well, the book itself recommends playing with the more standard character creation options first (e.g. Forgeworld - Adeptus Mechanicus - Sage) before moving to more exotic combinations. Notice that there are choice recommendations in each step of the Character creation process.

Well, it's important to note that I'm arguing about the comparison between this edition and the last edition. The last edition had you basically "set" by your class for what you could by and only allowed the option to buy outside skills by GM fiat. The new edition has you basically set by your homeworld/background/role and buying outside skills is actually a false choice because the extra cost makes them unviable. I would also argue that the character creation system is fairly opaque in regards to how it affects future character development, and that choices made during it basically determine future character development, as opposed to the needs of the story. I'm not necessarily calling this a bug or oversight, just pointing out that the flexibility does not really exist in character development after character creation is done.

I'll agree with you that the new system has a sort of "create your own class" vibe to it, especially in comparison to old dark heresy, but again the system is a bit too opaque to have this actually be doable for a starting player. Yes, the starting player is recommended to use established "classes" but at this point it's getting really similar to the old dark heresy.

It also doesn't matter in this discussion how often a GM has those skills come up. For every GM that has players roll dozens of Awareness checks, there is one who never has them come up. Thus, we cancel out that variable.

It actually matters a lot, because at a given moment, you're never playing a hypothetical perfectly average DH2 campaign with a perfectly average DH2 GM making perfectly average rulings. You're playing a specific campaign, with a specific focus, ran by a specific GM with a specific attitude towards the rules, and all that stuff will have much greater impact on your decisions than any statistical model can account for.

Note that the character creation gives you a lot of say as to which advancements will be mathematically viable and which won't, much more so than the charts of the earlier games, as here your final cost for all things is derived from three discrete choices, whereas in DH1 you were committed to one career path. Note that this gives you ample opportunity to "optimize" your future experience in accord with the nature of the campaign and the quirks of the GM, and unless you choose the GM for each session by drawing straws and having him run premade adventures pulled out of a hat, you should easily have enough info to make informed choices during character creation. Thus, in a specific situation, the "issue" is usually not nearly as dire as your abstracted math makes it look.

Remember, a professor of statistics once drowned in a lake that was statistically knee deep...

As I said, the game can't really determine what kind of DM is going to be playing, nor the experience levels of the players with the game or each other. You're putting the responsibility of knowing what kind of game is going to be run on the players rather than the game itself. Unless the game has pretty firm guidelines for the style of game or allows a great deal of player agency in when to engage in the game, then it has to assume neutrality of narrative during its design. Yes, it's true that the GM and players will have the most impact on how the game turns out, but there is still a portion of this that is caused directly by the way the game is designed. It is the responsibility of the game to make sure that this small proportion of the outcome it affects is either mostly neutral/tending away from bad outcomes, or that the control is increased to allow for the game system to have greater impact.

As I said above, the character creation is fairly opaque, and the fact that aptitudes are a secondary characteristic that doesn't directly affect the game (instead, they affect something else which directly affects the game), it becomes harder for players to plan and makes it more likely for them to lose control over their game outcome.

Besides, if I throw one dart way to the right of the board and the other way to the left, I'll have hit the bullseye on average, correct?

The classes are a clusterf**k. Who came up with names like Assassin, Chirurgeon, Desperado, Hierophant, Mystic, Sage, Seeker, Warrior? This is the 41st millenium, not DnD, They could have been a bit more creative.

Those names, point of reference, are drawn from descriptions of the Emperor's Tarot, and are terms used in several editions of the wargame as broad categories of Inquisitorial Henchmen.

Nimsim,

You basically create your own class from the start, the branch you'll go into. Certain decisions have already been made, BUT it's still possible to get certain talents or skills for instance but at a higher price, if you so desire.

Basically you're complaining that as a wizard you can't swing a sword as good, or wear plate armor as good compared to a warrior. Well boohoo. In certain cases, it might be interesting to take something outside of your field of expertise, in other cases perhaps not. Perhaps you should have made a spellsword instead of a wizard as a class?

Yes, certain choices might not be all that viable for your character. Is it an oversight of the system, a bug, etc? I doubt it.

I actually consider it to be part of its flexibility, not a flaw, or a shortcoming or anything.

That's my view on it.

You might say, "But new people have to think so far ahead when they create their character then". Well, the book itself recommends playing with the more standard character creation options first (e.g. Forgeworld - Adeptus Mechanicus - Sage) before moving to more exotic combinations. Notice that there are choice recommendations in each step of the Character creation process.

I'm going to need some explaining how "not flexible" is "flexible". I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Admittedly, it might be because in the system I grew up with, it's perfectly viable for a wizard to learn how to use a proper weapon and everyone in the party to learn how to sneak and fill in as face. It didn't detract from the game in the slightest, and maintained flexibility and variance through an unprecedented amount of progression options, be they skills or feats, while remaining easier to use, and build for, than most systems are today.

DH2, on the other hand, offers less skills than its predecessor, claims to be more flexible and retains only four progression options in each skill, leading to a price difference for non-class skills that renders even minor investments in vital adventurer basics, like stealth and awareness, punitive at best if you do not possess the correct aptitudes. But, why did it work in Only War? Why was it better, and more flexible, then?

Well, here goes:

1) Regiment creation rules allowed for additional aptitudes

2) Stormtroopers had the mentor skill, which let you shunt your stats to the rest of the regiment

3) Rudimentary mechanics to share skill boni with the team existed.

The mentor talent, and similar mechanics, are a simple fix for the problems presented by the aptitude system. Options to gain additional aptitudes dampen the impact of the dreaded "tier 3" on vital survival basics as well. In OW, everyone in our regiment can sneak if they have to. In Dark Heresy 2, if we played with the rules in the book, we'd have a glorious one in four acolytes who don't pay triple to do some basic sneaky infiltration. The consequence: The guy sneaking basically has to solo it. The rest of the party does something else in the meantime, which may well break the flow of the game.

Example 3)

I figure you want a non-abstract example, even though the above examples serve perfectly well. Let's take a Feral World Homeworld, Adeptus Administratum Background, and Warrior Role (I chose this from the odd character concepts thread). Your aptitudes are:

Toughness

Knowledge

Ballistic Skill

Defence

Offence

Strength

Weapon Skill

And let's compare investing points in something like Awareness at rank 1 versus Parry at rank 1. Awareness has zero matching aptitudes, and will cost 300xp. Parry has 2 matching aptitudes, and will cost 100xp. The player could buy 2 ranks of parry for the cost of 1 rank of awareness, gaining twice the effectiveness. He could also buy a rank in parry and a rank in any skill he has 1 matching aptitude for. Awareness becomes an unviable skill choice in comparison to all of these other skills, because it will always be a worse choice for increasing player agency. It also doesn't matter in this discussion how often a GM has those skills come up. For every GM that has players roll dozens of Awareness checks, there is one who never has them come up. Thus, we cancel out that variable.

The abstract examples are worthless, so I'll address this one:

How does investing in Parry at any cost matter if the skill you need is Awareness? Take Parry at +10 and keep Awareness at -20 and see if it helps you in the same manner as Awareness. It doesn't work that way. You're comparing apples to oranges and saying that the only thing that matters is the price of a piece of fruit. Selling non-citrus fruits to the old British Navy to help them fight scurvy won't be a viable option even if the price seems good.

However, in most games we might see one character pay 300 XP for Awareness +10 and 300 XP on Parry while another pays 300 XP for Awareness and 300 XP on Parry +10. There are going to be differences among characters (which is a good thing), but the cost differences certainly don't prevent well-rounded characters and it all works best if people realize that they need a mix of fruits in their baskets.

@HappyDaze

I explained why the abstract examples are applicable, and I explained why "what if you need that skill?" as an assumption doesn't apply to analyzing the system, because it's just as likely you need another skill equally as much or more. This is a fact that you seem to keep ignoring or at least failing to disprove.

I'll at least concede that I forgot that the first rank of a skill actually increases it by +20 with the following ranks increasing it by +10, but this won't affect the math that much for most choices of what skill to increase.

And although I've already said it once, this is not a matter of players competing against each other for who gets the most spotlight, it's about players competing with the system in order to get the maximum amount of control over what happens when they aren't roleplaying.

You've ignored what I've been saying a couple times, so I'm not going to go over this any more until you address the facts that 1) it is equally likely that another cheaper skill will be more or equally needed than an expensive one as the other way around, meaning that it isn't useful to include the assumption that the expensive one will be strongly wanted; and 2) the point of the game system that remains constant is the goal for players to try gaining as muh control over it as they can by spending xp. Please address or refute these points.

You've ignored what I've been saying a couple times, so I'm not going to go over this any more until you address the facts that 1) it is equally likely that another cheaper skill will be more or equally needed than an expensive one as the other way around, meaning that it isn't useful to include the assumption that the expensive one will be strongly wanted; and 2) the point of the game system that remains constant is the goal for players to try gaining as muh control over it as they can by spending xp. Please address or refute these points.

1) If both skills are equally necessary, then why do you propose that the character will only purchase one of them? The character will, XP permitting, purchase both. The cheaper one is likely to be purchased first, but not exclusively.

2) The point of the game system is to give an engine for resolving activities. XP expenditure aids that resolution, but any given expenditure is unlikely to do so for the whole, only for a particular piece. How much that piece matters varies considerably.

2) the point of the game system that remains constant is the goal for players to try gaining as muh control over it as they can by spending xp.

I always assumed the goal for players is to create a character they're having fun with, and the goal for the system is to simulate this character's interactions with the world of make-believe in a consistent manner.

2) the point of the game system that remains constant is the goal for players to try gaining as muh control over it as they can by spending xp.

I always assumed the goal for players is to create a character they're having fun with, and the goal for the system is to simulate this character's interactions with the world of make-believe in a consistent manner.

QFT

man..I go on a week's vacation it's on page 7...now page 19! What the hell happened, and are those 12 extra pages worth it or is it just **** waving all the **** time?

And concerning that assault pulsers that grants +41 BS..is it bullcrap or is it real? Because really, going about with this gun all over the place must be boring for the other players, or impossible to do with being a rail gun for one and having 34546 pounds of bells and whisltes on it...

of course, I'm just a craaazy DH1 GM with players who enjoy lasguns and stub automatics- and they are at Ascension rank 11-12 or so and care little for the aptitude system that diludes chacarterisation and personality to me...