Why would ammo compatibility be a problem in a setting where all production is governed by galaxy-spanning organizations? They could figure out unified lasgun charge packs, but can't figure out standardized cartridges? It doesn't hold up.

Which galaxy-spanning organisation is governing the production of some random underhive's gun shop or a sanctioned manufactorium as long as they are paying their fees? The rulebooks talk about a "galaxy of guns" and throw like a million local gun patterns at us. If individual planets have their own gun models, why shouldn't they have their own ammo specs as well?

The AdMech doesn't care as long as the manufacturer adheres to its religious mantra. If they are even aware of the maker.

I wouldn't even be so sure about unified lasgun charge packs - though I am of the opinion that they'd have a unified adapter, making sure they can all be plugged into the same generators and energy distribution nodes. The only projectile ammunition type that has ever been mentioned to be standardized is bolt shells, and those are described as being so hard to get anyways that it may just as well be the same here.

Basically, because to assume otherwise would attribute the Imperium with the level of idiocy that no amount of hidebound fanaticism begins to explain. It would require everyone in the Imperium to ignore the obvious benefits of having standardized ammo for no reason but... to be unique?

Note that the Imperium explicitly benefits from standardization in many other areas, thanks to all the scraps of the STC. Now, being able to load your gun is an important issue in a galaxy-spanning civilization that's obsessed with war:

If I'm a high-ranking commander of an IG regiment, I want my men to be able to share ammo with as many allied units as possible, because in a pinch, two shooters with one magazine each are better than one shooter with two magazines.

If I'm a Rogue Trader doing (often violent) business all over the sector, I want to be able to restock in every port I'm in.

If I'm a planetary governor responsible for arming the enforcers and the PDF, I want them to use unified equipment, because it makes logistics that much easier - and if at all possible, I want them compatible with whatever forces are most likely to come to the planet's aid in case of serious trouble, because it may be a matter of life and death for both my men and theirs (and consequently the whole planet).

If I'm a pilgrim buying a pistol to defend myself en route to the Shrine World, I will buy the one for which I will be able to buy ammo wherever I go.

Mind you, I'm not saying the Imperium has two or three types of bullets overall - I'm saying certain types of ammo will be vastly more popular, to the point of almost universal availability, and even some weapons with less common ammo might be built in a way that allows them to shoot more common ammo (like IRL Magnum revolvers can shoot non-Magnum rounds of same diameter).

Also, barring all that reasoning, telling players they can't reload their guns because local autoguns, despite being entirely identical to theirs in every comparable aspect, have a slightly different caliber, is a major **** move.

It's not a concern, until you need to spend more than a round reloading. Once the actual shooting starts, the reload time is more of a factor than the number of bullets you're carrying.

Hmmh this probably wouldn't apply to the heavy weapons with backpack supply, but I'd say they come with other issues.

It does make me wonder if perhaps the designers meant the autogun's ROF of 10 as a drawback rather than an advantage, though...

Well, it's certainly a drawback in BC and further. In previous systems, it's not actually inconceivable to make most of these rounds hit their mark. Not on an average starting character (except in DW, but this game is a different beast for many reasons), but overall quite possible.

Basically, because to assume otherwise would attribute the Imperium with the level of idiocy that no amount of hidebound fanaticism begins to explain. It would require everyone in the Imperium to ignore the obvious benefits of having standardized ammo for no reason but... to be unique?

You mean like with an Imperium-wide currency as opposed to letting individual planets and systems mint their own coins?

Or like with uniform religious worship as opposed to local variants of the faith?

Or like with a uniform tech-level as opposed to feral worlds sitting next to hives?

Or like with uniform military ranks ... political hierarchies ... the list goes on.

Look how many different types of bullets we have on our one little planet. Now consider the Imperium of Man, made up of a million worlds with very, very little communication between them, all with their own unique cultures and histories and their own governments whose leaders equip their warriors to their own preferences and requirements...

If you're a high-ranking commander of an Imperial Guard regiment, you (a) still fight with whatever equipment you've been provided with, and (b) have your troops carry lasguns anyways, because that's the one piece of equipment that is indeed standard throughout the Munitorum's armies. Aside from ease of maintenance, its big advantage is that every single lasgun, regardless of whatever local pattern it has been built from, still shoots the same energy - so even if the batteries may have different shapes, you could link them to another regiment's gear with minimal fuss.

If you're a Rogue Trader doing business all over a sector, then you're SOL, because entire planets won't suddenly shift their weapons industry to conform to His Highness's personal preferences in projectile dimensions just because Mylord comes shopping here once every five years. Note also that other Rogue Traders may very well have different preferences than yours.

If you're a planetary governor wishing to equip your PDF in a manner that is compatible with the forces most likely to respond to a distress signal, then you'll have to buy them lasguns, for as already pointed out, that's what the IG will show up with.

If you're a pilgrim wishing to buy a pistol that has ammo available "wherever you go", then I'd say you got scammed and the trader who sold you that gun made a fool out of you. Besides, as a pilgrim you won't even know how the next world you're going to visit looks like, much less what types of guns they use there. What is this, a hazardous journey to the holy land, or a 21st century vacation trip booked at the agency?

Sorry, I just can't buy any of those arguments. I guess this is just a matter of how we interpret the setting, and "your" Imperium simply looks a whole lot different from "mine". In this context, of course my suggested approach would also not be applicable to your games.

Also, barring all that reasoning, telling players they can't reload their guns because local autoguns, despite being entirely identical to theirs in every comparable aspect, have a slightly different caliber, is a major **** move.

As a player, I would consider a need for ammunition management a boon suitable for the atmosphere of a game about grimdark investigation and undercover black ops, not a hassle.

Especially if the alternative would be a nerf to my favourite gun.

Mind you, I'm not saying the Imperium has 3-5 million different bullet shapes and sizes and you won't be able to find ammo for said favourite gun anywhere but on the world where you purchased it. I'm saying that you can't take an Alcher Mark-II Justicar Autocarbine from its point of origin, then visit another world in a different system and just expect to find the very same type of cartridge and bullet as a matter of course during your first visit at the first random shop you come across. Or even at all, though the latter would indeed be a "major **** move" if it happens on every planet.

For you see, this is where I would recommend making use of the Barter and Inquiry skills and/or contacts (asking around, importing it, maybe have it made locally as a custom job, ...). If your characters have the time, that is.

Sorry for not quoting:

Having unified currency is actually a horrible idea, as the current economical state of the EU clearly shows.

Unified worship serves no purpose, and raising all worlds to highest possible technological level is neither affordable nor really necessary.

Unified ranks and political hierarchies likewise do very little in practical terms - those who are supposed to interact between the worlds will find their way, and the extra ease of having it unified is not worth the hassle of unifying it.

Meanwhile, having unified ammo is literally a matter of life and death when it comes up.

Yeah, we produced a lot of ammo types here on Earth. Yet you can take any of the multiple assault rifles used by NATO forces, built all over the world, and load them up with the same cartridges, because it makes sense to unify them if you're fighting together . Most of the cartridges on that picture are practically "novelty ammo", something of interest mainly for gun hobbyists and weapon collectors. For example, the .454 Casull rounds are used by four different models of handguns total, two from the same company and one custom made. Incidentally, the ammo is designed in such a way that each of these guns can fire the vastly more popular .45 ACP rounds, as well as few other rounds of the same diameter.

I'm sure custom guns with rare ammo types exist throughout the Imperium (in fact, we have a couple of them described across different systems - usually they come with separate rules for acquiring ammo for them included in the weapon description). I'm also sure there's a number of vastly popular rounds that works with a great number of weapons all over the galaxy. Again, our world has achieved a significant degree of standardization when it comes to firearms in less than two hundred years, and the Imperium has had ten thousand years, with all the same factors at work.

The real problem is you guys are both lobbing stubbers and autoguns into the same pile. Autoguns are caseless, nowadays obsolete weapons technology that is galactic standard, because it's based on a few simple designs that spread with the imperium.

Stubbers are more "primitive" guns which fire standard bullets, and they come in a vast amount of varieties which are highly dependant on local design, because their design predates the imperium.

So yes, if I buy an autopistol, I should be able to get ammunition for it anywhere there's a mechanicus-import option for bullets. If I buy a stubber, on the other hand, I'll need rounds in its specific calibre. These won't be available everywhere. Expecting standardisation is going to happen is a fallacy based on a practical model, rather than a theocratic and ideological one. The stubbers in current use are all mechanicus approved or tech heresy. One or the other.

How do you get mechanicus approval?

You join them.

Who joined the mechanicus?
Local gun manufacturers, so they could stay in business.

Does the mechanicus change your existant technology?
No. It's the holy design of the Omnissiah.

Does this development encourage a galactic standard ammunition?
For stubbers? No. Autoguns are an imperial design from the get go, though, so yes, they're standardised.

Morangias:

• The current economical state of the EU has nothing to do with the Euro. Its issues would exist either way, as can easily be seen in other EU countries that are not part of the Eurozone agreement.
• Unified worship serves a purpose in eliminating religious friction that does, in 40k, actually lead to a whole lot of unnecessary bloodshed.
• Raising a planet's tech-level would significantly increase its production capabilities (Industrial Revolution?) as well as the lifespans of its inhabitants, in turn providing the Imperium with larger and better equipped armies to fight its wars.
• Intercultural interaction with soldiers of different ranks happens every time two or more Imperial Guard regiments from multiple regions of the Imperium operate in an Army Group. "Finding their way somehow anyways" does not remove the fact that it's more complicated than just having everyone use the same rank system (which wouldn't be that hard to do, as real life history has shown multiple times).

As for the claim that all NATO assault rifles use the same cartridge: they really don't. The UK for example also uses both the SCAR-L and the SCAR-H, and the latter fires 7.62mm as opposed to the standard 5.52 round. Likewise, Germany still has a couple of G3's in circulation (although unlike with the UK recently adopting the SCAR-H for its special forces, the G3 is in the process of slowly being phased out). There's probably more exception if we really want to dig deeper. And this comes among reports of the US currently considering to switch to 6.8mm ... so whilst STANAG has resulted in widespread use of 5.52mm it is nowhere near as universal as you seem to think.

And this is just one planet, where unlike in 40k every single decider has the option of realtime communication with the other side, and where the different armies have a much, much bigger chance of actually fighting together.

Again: If you want to make sure your soldiers share ammunition with others, give them las weapons. By ditching lasguns and opting for projectile-based weaponry you have already given up on standardisation. Why should other planets follow your separatist lead, and adopt your preferences for a particular bullet type? I'd assume that those interested in standardisation would stick with las weaponry, and those who don't care would just select according to their own ideas.

DeathByGrotz: Isn't that assumption kind of contradicted by there being a lot of different autogun patterns around? Even the bolter is not standardised - it uses standardised ammunition (at least in GW's books), but if a weapon system has so many variants, then hypothetically the same could be true for its ammo.

And since when are autoguns even supposed to be an "Imperial" design when no Imperial army is actually using them? Marines and Sisters have boltguns, the Guard uses lasguns, the Navy and Arbites shotguns. "The Imperium" doesn't care for autorifles. Only PDF, gangers and mercs do, and the vast majority of them is never going to leave their homeworld. Everyone who cares for standardisation uses either bolters or lasers.

It's the same as with PDF vehicles:

"Although a planet's defence forces will almost certainly include locally designed vehicles, often the most wild or specialised kind, these are almost never recruited into the Imperial Guard because of the difficulty of maintenance and impracticality of keeping them running."

- 2E C:IG

Note: I'm basing my interpretation of the setting on codex fluff like the above quote - there will almost certainly be conflicting statements in other material such as Black Library novels. I seem to recall that it depends a lot on the source whether autoguns use caseless or cased ammunition or both, too, though that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

Agripinaa Pattern Type II - A pattern of Autogun hailing from the Forge World of Agripinaa, this Autogun is chambered for the largest standard ballistic round in the Imperium, and possesses a simple fire selector allowing the user to fire single shots, three round bursts or fully automatic streams.

The above is taken from wh40k wiki and accirding to them is from Imperial Armour Volume Five (or Six) - The Siege of Vraks. It does explicitly state standardization for ballistic rounds wuthin the Imperium.

I actually read through that long list. "New maps", really?

Trying too hard.

(In other words, any attempts at objective comparisons lose their worth when you use a bunch of buzzwords like "cool" and "clever".)

One could just as easily pick out less skills, less talents and consider it a devolution. One could take "easier medical healing" and wonder why a previously hard game suddenly became so much easier. One could take a look at the overall nerf in weapons damage and wonder, wonder hard, why the toughness/armour mechanic has been amplified, instead of dealt with. There are plenty of sound reasons to dislike the new edition or advise against buying. The chief one for DH1 fans is that it as yet fails to address actual problems in the system and makes the game easier.

Did you just seriously read through that entire list of differences, pick out one line & conclude "Trying too hard"? Then chose to dismiss the whole list based on an argument that I - (gasp!) - used the uber-manipulative words "cool" & "clever"?

So you're predisposed to disagree - got it. I composed the list for folks that were still open to input.

Back to the maps & your silly nitpick:

• Page 302-303: New 2-page spread map entitled "Imperius Dominatus"
• Page 322-323: New 2-page spread map entitled "The Askellon Sector"

A number of new maps - really? Yes, really.

DH2 did address (at least to some extent) two of the biggest issues (IMO) in DH1:

- Game Balance: DH1 psykers absolutely dominated past early ranks, almost anything could be done better by a tech-priest and BoM sisters and Crimson Guards could break a game starting at rank 1.

-Thrones. Basing economy on cash encouraged players to go about it like D&D: take everything that's not nailed down to sell it. That didn't feel very setting-appropriate at all (inquisition scavenging around). Way different thrones earnings per class was also a very bad call IMO.

I'm not sure how it can be claimed that DH2 didn't address 'actual problems in the system'.

No, you compiled the list in a biased manner, so I'm dismissing it out of hand. Rather than listing actual changes, you chose to scrounge every tiny bit little "update" and treat it like a groundbreaking novelty in tone. It does not contain enough content to be relevant to a crunch discussion. It does contain enough buzzwords to be utterly biased, though. The omissions on the actual crunch and how things were "changed" as opposed to prior editions are pretty telltale, as is the choice to compare only to DH1 instead of RT, BC and OW, which would be an actual, valid comparison and attempt to debunk the statement a la "nothing new under the sun".

In short:
Your list is biased trash.

Acting incredulous will not change that.

RE single shot/Full auto:

Rereading the discussion, the sentiment that single shot weaponry is undervalued is something my round suffers from as well. I don't necessarily see anything bad in this, though, because its time and place is outside of frontal combat. A simple, but effective, solution should my players think this to be a problem is boosting the damage of single shot weapons, or providing alternatives that make single shot worth it.

For example:

Nova AS-1.7 Assault Uzi:

A compact assault weapon with a short barrel, second grip for stabilising purposesand an integrated underbarrel bolter for short range sniping purposes or heavily armoured targets. It contains a small bolt clip holding three shells near the front of the weapon, and a sideloading, low calibre stub magasine for standard targets. Given its intended use in urban environments, its rate of fire has been capped to short and long bursts to prevent spread and unnecessary collateral damage.

Range 50m

Stub barrel: RoF 1/3/5 Damage 1d10I+2 Pen 1 Clip 30 RL 1 full

Bolt underbarrel: RoF 1/-/- Damage 1d10+5X Pen 4 Clip 3 RL 2 full, Tearing

Weapon comes with a fire selector and a built in red dot laser sight. Scope optional.

RE the cash mechanic vs acquisitions:

Truth be told, I would have preferred they keep both. There are things you purchase with operational funds and things you just buy for yourself on your salary. Even if you don't use throne gelt at all, it's nice to see how much something actually costs in comparison, for RP purposes. My players do ask, and as a DM, it's annoying to have to look this stuff up in DH1, because one entry in the tables got scrapped entirely.

Yeah let's cut down on book-keeping and gross player ability imbalances and call it a day. No need to worry about the glaring flaws in the d100 system or the fact that the rules a mountain of poorly edited, decade-old kludge fixes and let's also ignore any and all lessons learned by other games in the hobby, and the fact that the rules don't actually support the main theme of the game and continue doing what we've been doing.

We'll call it progress.

Yeah let's cut down on book-keeping and gross player ability imbalances and call it a day. No need to worry about the glaring flaws in the d100 system or the fact that the rules a mountain of poorly edited, decade-old kludge fixes and let's also ignore any and all lessons learned by other games in the hobby, and the fact that the rules don't actually support the main theme of the game and continue doing what they we've been doing. We'll call it progress.

As for the rules, apart from the metric ton of editing issues, I fund them pretty well put together.

And I'm also curious, what are the lessons other games have learned thay you mention?

Yeah let's cut down on book-keeping and gross player ability imbalances and call it a day. No need to worry about the glaring flaws in the d100 system or the fact that the rules a mountain of poorly edited, decade-old kludge fixes and let's also ignore any and all lessons learned by other games in the hobby, and the fact that the rules don't actually support the main theme of the game and continue doing what we've been doing.

We'll call it progress.

For some people, all an rpg really is is a combat system, big list of skills, big list of feats, big list of classes, big list of equipment, and a bunch of fiddly rules for things that most players either ignore or will never have come up. The game is only unbalanced if a character is able to overcome the assumed limitations set on him by the rules, not based on the actual utility of everything on these big lists.

Dark Heresy still mostly just resembles D&D and other clones of it and the D20 system.

While I am in the camp that values balance (and esprcially internal balance), I think this camp is a minority on the gaming scene.

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder are a mess of epic proportions balance-wise (no FFG RPG ever came close) and still are most likely the most successful RPGs in the history of the genre.

Yeah let's cut down on book-keeping and gross player ability imbalances and call it a day. No need to worry about the glaring flaws in the d100 system or the fact that the rules a mountain of poorly edited, decade-old kludge fixes and let's also ignore any and all lessons learned by other games in the hobby, and the fact that the rules don't actually support the main theme of the game and continue doing what they we've been doing. We'll call it progress.

What 'glaring flaws in the d100 system'? And equally important which system wouls you rather have them use?

As for the rules, apart from the metric ton of editing issues, I fund them pretty well put together.

And I'm also curious, what are the lessons other games have learned thay you mention?

Flaws: lack of scaling between humans and monsters for a setting like dark heresy, generally low success rates or need to spend time looking up modifiers rather than roleplaying actions, high chance of failure which in turn is very boring for player and GM.

In turn, the only real advantage of d100 is knowing your exact percentage chance of success, but that isn't actually very conducive to roleplaying. The real flaws of d100 here are the terrible lack of scaling and the reliance on fiddly modifiers and low success rates.

Alternate Systems: The in-house Star Wars and WFRP system that fantasy flight has is quite nice. Coming up with another system may be necessary. The Gumshoe system would be great for an investigation focus and Feng Shui would be great for the combat focus. Mutant Chronicles 3rd Edition has an interesting system that could be worth hacking for dark heresy. Id love if this used the Apocalypse World engine. Fate would not work, because it sucks at doing equipment.

Lessons: games should be designed with intended play in mind, and both include guidelines for this style of play and have the rules support and guide that style. Ironically, the original D&D actually did this quite well when all the rules were used. Rules for the sake of simulating a world are of questionable value, especially as they relate to gameplay. Careful editing and writing make it much easier to learn and remember game rules. The more lists of crap you pile on, the less cohesive the game design will be. Random tables of whacky results tend to be more fun to read about than play. Games that punish players for playing them by forcing them to not play them are bad game design. The list goes on.

While I am not n the camp that values balance (and esprcially internal balance), I think thus camp is a minority on the gaming scene.

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder are a mess of epic proportions balance-wise (no FFG RPG ever came close) and still are most likely the most successful RPGs in the history of the genre.

Mcdonalds and Olive Garden are terrible examples of burgers and Italian food, but they are by far the most successful restaurants of that food type.

Agripinaa Pattern Type II - A pattern of Autogun hailing from the Forge World of Agripinaa, this Autogun is chambered for the largest standard ballistic round in the Imperium, and possesses a simple fire selector allowing the user to fire single shots, three round bursts or fully automatic streams.

The above is taken from wh40k wiki and accirding to them is from Imperial Armour Volume Five (or Six) - The Siege of Vraks. It does explicitly state standardization for ballistic rounds wuthin the Imperium.

Instead of insisting upon that statement explicitly stating that there must be several rounds (given that the "weapon is chambered for the largest"), or pointing out that fan-edited wikis such as Lexicanum can be very unreliable, I'll instead point towards the last comment in my previous post:

It'd not be the only thing where Forgeworld's authors had different ideas to the GW main studio.

I suppose this explains the gap between our interpretations, though: we simply grew up on and adhere to different books, so it's little wonder that our visions of the 41st millennium will differ in detail. Since our interpretations seem incompatible on this aspect (whilst of course neither being invalid or incorrect), I suggest we simply drop the subject as otherwise we'll only end up argueing endlessly.

As I alluded to earlier: It works for me, and it solves a problem presented in the mechanics. If you adhere to a different school of thought regarding the background, I can only wish you the best of luck looking for an alternative solution. Perhaps as a GM you could try staging most of your group's adventures in areas where there is no easy access to gun/ammo vendors, thus creating a different reason for the shortage?

I'm not sure how it can be claimed that DH2 didn't address 'actual problems in the system'.

Personally, I'm in the camp of: yeah, they did address actual problems (as they did with nearly or even every single other product line of their 40k RPGs) - they just didn't do it enough, and still keep maintaining some flaws of the basic system which I consider pretty significant since even before Dark Heresy .

No need to worry about the glaring flaws in the d100 system or the fact that the rules a mountain of poorly edited, decade-old kludge fixes and let's also ignore any and all lessons learned by other games in the hobby, and the fact that the rules don't actually support the main theme of the game and continue doing what we've been doing.

I actually like the d100 system - in principle. There's just some significant issues with the basic concept that should be dealt with, and I think the reluctance to go beyond the 100 mark is a considerable hindrance for establishing a proper balance and reasonable scaling.

For example, for all its own flaws, GW's own d100 Inquisitor did go beyond 100 with some of the Space Marine characteristics, thus circumventing the need for Unnaturals. There's nothing wrong with tests whose difficulty is beyond the capability of normal humans - and that's where values beyond the 100 mark come it. Likewise, I see no issue with Space Marines auto-succeeding on tests that could be considered challenging for said ordinary humans ... and I say this as someone used to ranting against RPG Marines being OP.

Alternatively (or perhaps better yet in combination with the above for tests), we could simply opt for lower characteristics scores overall, thus making sure that 100 really is the maximum for everyone, including the most potent daemons. Does anyone remember the characteristics comparison chart in the DH1 core rulebook? All a d100 game would need is a chart like that established before you begin working on PC and NPC profiles, and sticking to it, rather than undermining it with every new supplement you publish.

While I am not n the camp that values balance (and esprcially internal balance), I think thus camp is a minority on the gaming scene.D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder are a mess of epic proportions balance-wise (no FFG RPG ever came close) and still are most likely the most successful RPGs in the history of the genre.

Mcdonalds and Olive Garden are terrible examples of burgers and Italian food, but they are by far the most successful restaurants of that food type.

Regarding lack of scaling of the d100 system may be bad in the human vs. monster angle but it has the advantage of keeping everyone with their feet on the ground (a max rank acolyte will be better than Joe Average off the street but not that.much better to appear inhuman).

Many scaling systems create an ever widening gap.between what a specialized player character can do and what Joe Average can do, often to the point PCs begin to be truly superhuman (to use D&D as an example of a poorly done scaling system, stab a very experienced but fully mundane human fighter straight through the heart and he will walk it off 19/20 times).

And players will always seek to pie in modifiers whem it's posiible because simply success is more exciting than failure.

And players will always seek to pie in modifiers whem it's posiible because simply success is more exciting than failure.

Realistically speaking, so will NPCs. Last week, I had an NPC hacksaw at my players with an effective WS of ninety, from a fifty base.

@Lynata

The problem with the d100 system scaling is that even for putting characteristics above 100, you still have two differing assumptions. First, a +0 difficulty test is considered somewhat difficult for an average person. However, the test itself is considered to be anything important enough to warrant a roll. You suddenly have this dichotomy between wanting to roll for things based on whether they're difficult or whether they're important. One of these assumptions is based in simulating a world, and the other is based in the narrative of the game. The GM has to decide both if something is important, and then rather than put difficulty based on importance have the difficulty set by the standards of an average human. So space marines only roll to kick in doors with -60 modifiers? Why do the space marines use modifiers based on human standards? Why don't they just get their own modifiers? You run into this issue of trying to define difficulty in human terms and then applying to non-humans in ways that don't match up with narrative expectation.

Nimsim covered most of what I was getting at. FFG's Star Wars system is really, really good, but it doesn't have rules to address the main themes of 40k. They know how to make a good system, but they chose to re-release an old system without fixing any of the core problems with it.

One of these assumptions is based in simulating a world, and the other is based in the narrative of the game. The GM has to decide both if something is important, and then rather than put difficulty based on importance have the difficulty set by the standards of an average human. So space marines only roll to kick in doors with -60 modifiers? Why do the space marines use modifiers based on human standards? Why don't they just get their own modifiers? You run into this issue of trying to define difficulty in human terms and then applying to non-humans in ways that don't match up with narrative expectation.

Couldn't you just combine the two factors, though? Personally, I'd always try to simulate a world first - but construct an adventure in a way that it hopefully delivers a gripping narrative, which would also be reflected in the challenges the players come across.

Test difficulty is still based on normal human characters as they should be considered the normal PC - especially since even Space Marines only have two posthuman characteristics, but are comparable everywhere else. However, you could insert tests that are too difficult for normal humans to succeed in, thus either presenting your Marine characters with a challenging task, or forcing said normal humans to come up with an alternative solution (such as looking for another way if they can't get that door open).

That's how I would go about it anyways. And voila, suddenly we even get a unified ruleset out of it.

While I am not n the camp that values balance (and esprcially internal balance), I think thus camp is a minority on the gaming scene.D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder are a mess of epic proportions balance-wise (no FFG RPG ever came close) and still are most likely the most successful RPGs in the history of the genre.

Mcdonalds and Olive Garden are terrible examples of burgers and Italian food, but they are by far the most successful restaurants of that food type.

Exactly. Which means that for the average buyer of burgers/italian food quality is not the most important factor.

Regarding lack of scaling of the d100 system may be bad in the human vs. monster angle but it has the advantage of keeping everyone with their feet on the ground (a max rank acolyte will be better than Joe Average off the street but not that.much better to appear inhuman).

Many scaling systems create an ever widening gap.between what a specialized player character can do and what Joe Average can do, often to the point PCs begin to be truly superhuman (to use D&D as an example of a poorly done scaling system, stab a very experienced but fully mundane human fighter straight through the heart and he will walk it off 19/20 times).

And players will always seek to pie in modifiers whem it's posiible because simply success is more exciting than failure.

But then the difference between DH and those restaurants is ease of accessibility, which DH sorely lacks. Its only real credit is familiarity to old players a popular license, the latte of which is the only selling point for new players.

And if the stabbed acolyte put his experience into toughness and wounds and/or is a tech priest, he'll easily outsurvive and outclass the rookie. Wounds and damage aren't an inherent part of the d100 system (although combat does have its own glaring issues which have already been brought up in the thread), so they're not worth introducing as an example of scaling. You do come to a point where you can have someone trained in a super specialized skill that doesn't afford a lot of modifiers and suddenly you're left wondering whether difficulty should be based on the average person (who wouldn't be trained), the average trained person, te importance of the roll, or any other factors. Difficulty becomes nebulous and you in turn can be lead to having the trained professional failing at doing an interesting action more than half of the time.

And you've basically admitted that the game by default is having the less exciting outcome occur more than half of the time. This doesn't have to be the case!

Nimsim covered most of what I was getting at. FFG's Star Wars system is really, really good, but it doesn't have rules to address the main themes of 40k. They know how to make a good system, but they chose to re-release an old system without fixing any of the core problems with it.

It is my firm belief that the example of D&D 4E ended radical changes in game systems that sell well for a long time. I can totally understand, especially in light of the beta why FFG wanted to go safe on DH2.

DH2 is a (slight) incremental imprivement of OW and a rather big (but still incremental) improvement of DH1 ans my guess is that's exqvtly what they were aiming for.

One of these assumptions is based in simulating a world, and the other is based in the narrative of the game. The GM has to decide both if something is important, and then rather than put difficulty based on importance have the difficulty set by the standards of an average human. So space marines only roll to kick in doors with -60 modifiers? Why do the space marines use modifiers based on human standards? Why don't they just get their own modifiers? You run into this issue of trying to define difficulty in human terms and then applying to non-humans in ways that don't match up with narrative expectation.

Couldn't you just combine the two factors, though? Personally, I'd always try to simulate a world first - but construct an adventure in a way that it hopefully delivers a gripping narrative, which would also be reflected in the challenges the players come across.

Test difficulty is still based on normal human characters as they should be considered the normal PC - especially since even Space Marines only have two posthuman characteristics, but are comparable everywhere else. However, you could insert tests that are too difficult for normal humans to succeed in, thus either presenting your Marine characters with a challenging task, or forcing said normal humans to come up with an alternative solution (such as looking for another way if they can't get that door open).

That's how I would go about it anyways. And voila, suddenly we even get a unified ruleset out of it.

I mentioned it a bit above, but how are you going to determine this difficulty? By the average human? What about trained skills, like tech-use? Is difficulty based on the average human, the average tech-user, or is it arbitrary? Think of having a space marine with 110 strength. He'll automatically succeed at most strength rolls. However, the game is under an assumption that fun gameplay involves succeeding at a much lower rate. So you suddenly have a character who is breaking the assumed success rate conpletely. Suddenly, what may be considered an interesting task is trivially easy and you then have to look at what an interesting task is for a space marine but then base the difficulty on a human. Basically, one of the assumptions must get ciolated for non-humans with crazy abilities to be started out.

Nimsim covered most of what I was getting at. FFG's Star Wars system is really, really good, but it doesn't have rules to address the main themes of 40k. They know how to make a good system, but they chose to re-release an old system without fixing any of the core problems with it.

It is my firm belief that the example of D&D 4E ended radical changes in game systems that sell well for a long time. I can totally understand, especially in light of the beta why FFG wanted to go safe on DH2.

DH2 is a (slight) incremental imprivement of OW and a rather big (but still incremental) improvement of DH1 ans my guess is that's exqvtly what they were aiming for.

Which is a **** shame, because 4E was a solid tactical combat RPG.

DH2 being a slight, incremental improvement of a previous game is, in my opinion, damning with faint praise.