I’m going to play the devil’s advocate about the whole situation here:

I’m thoroughly enjoying Dark Heresy Second Edition, and so are my players.

Truthfully, I came into the 40k RPGs pretty late. I never played the original Dark Heresy, I never played Rogue Trader, nor Deathwatch, nor Black Crusade. I did however, play a few sessions of Only War, and the whole time I thought to myself: “You know what, this is great. An Inquisition version of this would be perfect.”

I was pretty happy when that’s pretty much what I got. My group and I went into DH2 with open minds and we’ve been loving it so far. It’s a system with as much depth as you want to give it.

Some people criticize the system for not pushing far enough in a new direction, but for people coming into the 40k RPG line for the first time, it’s great where it is. Knowing that I can also grab most of the supplements from DH1 or RT and have them fit pretty easily is awesome.

Sure, the rulebook may have some typos and the occasional error, but coming from a background in Call of Cthulhu, you get used to that kinda thing awfully quick.

If you’re arguing about some sections or profiles being “cut-and-paste”, go check out some other publishers’ books. In some cases, we’re talking about ENTIRE BOOKS “updated” with cut-and-paste while only changing a few stats. Also, once again, having just entered Dark Heresy and the 40k line now, I really couldn’t tell you what has been copied over.

DH2 will be exactly what you want to make of it. For me, it’s a strong framework for some excellent narrative and combat experiences. For my players, they love the fantastic character creation, the classless leveling, and you know what? Even the setting. Calixis had more than half a decade to be fleshed out. We’ve had one book so far. Give Askellon time to grow.

Once again, this book is what you make of it.

Copy-Paste is highly regarded in the 40k world unfortunately, starting from Games Workshop. Hold the 6th and 7th edition books side-by-side and see how much is different.

While it would be ideal to keep releasing full books filled with new and entertaining content, that's an effort very few (I know of none) gaming companies are willing to make. It's either copy paste or fill the books with random original but useless stuff (like WotC does, about 70% of a given D&D supplement is likely to be there just to fill page count because most sane players will never consider it).

I personally didn't think the dramatic change in the beta was purely down to vocal disappointment with the changes. Time pressures certainly seemed equally important to me. I believed what they released with the beta turned out to be a heck of a lot less ready than I they thought. The beta didn't just need some minor tweaks, it needed quite a lot of work. Lots of interesting ideas (that I wasn't terribly keen on, but then I have felt FFG has moved away from the game I wanted to play ever since they published Deathwatch), but not nearly ready to go. This compares to the Star Wars betas, where it was pretty much tweaks and balancing elements that needed done. Even the Edge of Empire beta (ie the first which was testing the system as built, while the others are mostly tweaking its old system) didn't have too many big systematic changes from what I remember.

Dark Heresy 2nd's original beta introduced significant new ideas, like the purely critical based wound system, the actions points etc. None of those were going to be a simple fix. Fixable, yes, but they all needed a lot more work to make a practical system that most people would be happy with than I think FFG realised. Once that became apparent I think they realised it wouldn't be possible in the timeline they had for themselves. Making an update of Only War would be much quicker, as well as dealing with the criticisms of those who had basically wanted "Dark Only Heresy War".

Dark Heresy 2nd's original beta introduced significant new ideas, like the purely critical based wound system, the actions points etc. None of those were going to be a simple fix. Fixable, yes, but they all needed a lot more work to make a practical system that most people would be happy with than I think FFG realised.

Actually, in my experience, they are all pretty easy to fix:

- The only problem with the AP system was the weapon fire rate. Fix: instead of different per-weapon AP fire rate values, make Single Fire 1 AP, Burst Fire 2 AP and Auto Fire 3 AP. Called Shot is +1 AP (for Single and Burst), Suppressive Fire is +1 AP (for Burst and Auto), and that's it.

- For the Wound system, you just have to ditch the weird not!wounds concept (and the TB skin armour), and say that every TB amount of damage taken, you gain 1 Wound. When you have X Wounds, you die. Damage is separately applied to the effect table, no stacking from previous damage, Wounds taken or anything.

And I guess that's it. maybe lower the requirements for the Talents and Psychic Powers too, and rework some of the Talent trees to better "connect up" with the desirable character concept.

I am not plotting FFG's destruction from a mountaintop lair. I go about my relatively normal life very rarely thinking of them. But whenever someone mentions Dark Heresy, I am merciless in my invective against the business decisions that went into Dark Heresy 2e.

Nothing wrong with that, just thought it important to point out they didn't do anything personally just to tic your switch.

Dark Heresy 2nd's original beta introduced significant new ideas, like the purely critical based wound system, the actions points etc. None of those were going to be a simple fix. Fixable, yes, but they all needed a lot more work to make a practical system that most people would be happy with than I think FFG realised.

Actually, in my experience, they are all pretty easy to fix:

- The only problem with the AP system was the weapon fire rate. Fix: instead of different per-weapon AP fire rate values, make Single Fire 1 AP, Burst Fire 2 AP and Auto Fire 3 AP. Called Shot is +1 AP (for Single and Burst), Suppressive Fire is +1 AP (for Burst and Auto), and that's it.

- For the Wound system, you just have to ditch the weird not!wounds concept (and the TB skin armour), and say that every TB amount of damage taken, you gain 1 Wound. When you have X Wounds, you die. Damage is separately applied to the effect table, no stacking from previous damage, Wounds taken or anything.

And I guess that's it. maybe lower the requirements for the Talents and Psychic Powers too, and rework some of the Talent trees to better "connect up" with the desirable character concept.

Agreed. Fixing it and making it workable was not hard.

Yep that'll fix your issues, let's say how we would've fixed it even though we don't know the full ramifications of that fix or what it would've had on the beta community which may have not liked your fix anyways.

Yep that'll fix your issues, let's say how we would've fixed it even though we don't know the full ramifications of that fix or what it would've had on the beta community which may have not liked your fix anyways.

Well, it is not like we are overhauling the whole Beta system with those fixes. That's why they are so easy. It is just fine-tuning, improving and adding options.

And before you ask, there were like a dozen people proposing these (or very similar) fixes in the Beta forums.

Yeah i know, and the options weren't taken for one reason or another.

Yeah i know, and the options weren't taken for one reason or another.

They were just simply not taken. No reasons, just ignored or something.

They don't have to give you reasons when they don't take them.

They don't have to give you reasons when they don't take them.

So did they just ragequit? Or what?

We are literally retracing old ground here, we know what they did. They remade Dark Heresy through the only war system. They didn't continue with that iteration of the beta and they didn't see fit to tell us why, we've speculated it was the negative feedback/time they had to try and fix the system they gave out.

Stop circling.

A lot of diehard fans were really disappointed, man. Let them mourn what could have been.

A lot of diehard fans were really disappointed, man. Let them mourn what could have been.

There's a distinct difference between mourning and wallowing.

A lot of diehard fans were really disappointed, man. Let them mourn what could have been.

I'm done with their mourning, and I was done after the first three threads of this here and I'll be done when the next ones come out too. It's done, it's overwith they move on or should just go to the House Rule section and make the game they apparently all wanted.

A lot of diehard fans were really disappointed, man. Let them mourn what could have been.

I'm done with their mourning, and I was done after the first three threads of this here and I'll be done when the next ones come out too. It's done, it's overwith they move on or should just go to the House Rule section and make the game they apparently all wanted.

The problem with this approach is that the player community is not a charity organization, and FFG doesn't make these games to let the writers live out their artistic sense. If the writers both their job, then the customers become unhappy, sales will drop because of the negative feedback, and the company will stop supporting the line, so even those who liked the end product will be unhappy.

You can ignore negativity only if you write stuff out of hobby and not for a living. However, if you are in for the money, then you are pretty much bound to read and carefully consider even the most negative comments, because God only knows how many customers (=money) are behind those comments.

Assuming they are actually ignoring negativity in the first place. It's not because you didn't get a product to your heart's desire that they don't listen to people in general, even the negative feedback, especially the negative feedback.

Assuming they are actually ignoring negativity in the first place. It's not because you didn't get a product to your heart's desire that they don't listen to people in general, even the negative feedback, especially the negative feedback.

I was mostly referring to this whole "negative feedback is ruining everything!" stuff that is going on here. It seems that the general consensus is that the writers scrapped the 1.0 Beta because they couldn't take the negativity... this is pure BS IMHO.

I'm a great fan of FFG product - until 2009 or so. I own twice of every Tide of Iron game and expansion they put out (for custom scenarios), loved Runebound, Chaos in the Old World, and their Warhammer 3rd core box, not to mention Dark Heresy 1 and Rogue Trader. However, around 2009 I began to notice a decline in editing standards - ToI and Descent scenario hardcovers featured unplayable scenarios - with atrocious handling of the Warhammer Rpg hardbacks and kits (to replace the core set), and then serious quality control issues with Mansions of Madness and Battles of Westeros. Do yourself a favour and read some of those games' forums on here and Boardgamegeek, even if you don't play them. You'll observe the same pattern over and over- game bombs because of bad editing, FFG does not issue reaction (except when things are downright, physically unplayable - MofM), fans step in to volunteer professional and unpaid editing labour, no reaction. Next game rolls up - same circle.

I think it's futile to rant against this. This is company policy and you can only vote with your wallett. I'm very happy with the FFG games I have, and like them for it, but I've stopped buying from them nearly entirely (Relic wasy first purchase in 2 years, and since then). The company isn't evil - it's simply in production overdrive and doesn't want to slow the roll out down by editing. (Fans will buy regardless, so why edit?) And please don't blame the devs. It's clear from glass door that it's upper management - bad hiring policy, quick turnover, no chance to accumulate and retain competency, no place for bottom-up feedback (from lower workers, let alone people on online fora!) to find its way into a product. Read here:

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Fantasy-Flight-Games-Reviews-E107648.htm

Happy gaming everyone, whatever game, whatever edition rocks your boat.

(PS Had an account (to the same name; I'm on quite a few RPG boards under the same name) here for years, but it appears it got deleted due to inacitivity, so I had to register anew. Just in case the low post count makes you wonder...)

A lot of diehard fans were really disappointed, man. Let them mourn what could have been.

Are you talking about Beta1 ? What exactly 'could have been' that was so impressive that it deserves 'mourning'? It ported over almost all of the structural problems with DH1 (such as the lack of 'depth' in the percentile mechanic, which results in most Tests being either 'nearly always fail' or 'nearly always succeed'), with a few underdeveloped 'bells and whistles' tacked on. I admit that I wish DH2 had kept Action Points, since they simplify the clunky language of 'two Half Actions or one Full Action, plus a Reaction', but that and the not-thought-out-well-enough Narrative Damage system were not the awe-inspiring changes that the people who gnash their teeth at the loss of Beta1 make them out to be.

A lot of diehard fans were really disappointed, man. Let them mourn what could have been.

Are you talking about Beta1 ? What exactly 'could have been' that was so impressive that it deserves 'mourning'? It ported over almost all of the structural problems with DH1 (such as the lack of 'depth' in the percentile mechanic, which results in most Tests being either 'nearly always fail' or 'nearly always succeed'), with a few underdeveloped 'bells and whistles' tacked on. I admit that I wish DH2 had kept Action Points, since they simplify the clunky language of 'two Half Actions or one Full Action, plus a Reaction', but that and the not-thought-out-well-enough Narrative Damage system were not the awe-inspiring changes that the people who gnash their teeth at the loss of Beta1 make them out to be.

The Specialist Talent instead of Specialist Skills was a true loss, for example.

Dark Heresy 2nd's original beta introduced significant new ideas, like the purely critical based wound system, the actions points etc. None of those were going to be a simple fix. Fixable, yes, but they all needed a lot more work to make a practical system that most people would be happy with than I think FFG realised.

Actually, in my experience, they are all pretty easy to fix:

- The only problem with the AP system was the weapon fire rate. Fix: instead of different per-weapon AP fire rate values, make Single Fire 1 AP, Burst Fire 2 AP and Auto Fire 3 AP. Called Shot is +1 AP (for Single and Burst), Suppressive Fire is +1 AP (for Burst and Auto), and that's it.

- For the Wound system, you just have to ditch the weird not!wounds concept (and the TB skin armour), and say that every TB amount of damage taken, you gain 1 Wound. When you have X Wounds, you die. Damage is separately applied to the effect table, no stacking from previous damage, Wounds taken or anything.

And I guess that's it. maybe lower the requirements for the Talents and Psychic Powers too, and rework some of the Talent trees to better "connect up" with the desirable character concept.

Didn't you have 3 AP? So supressive fire with full auto would actually be impossible under those mechanics? I may be misremembering, as it is a while since I checked the old beta rules, but I thought it had essentially been that the two half actions and reaction turned into AP. Also, you may think that is all it required, but it may have had other effects on the action economy that you had not foreseen. It may have also not met the deign goals they had in mind (if they were looking to get rid of distinct "single shot, burst fire and auto-fire actions, for example). Again, I am not saying it is not fixable, but simply returning to a known system was going to be simpler.

Also, that wounding change is not a "fix". It is a totally different system, which would have its own balance issues and require looking at every adversary and weapon you had worked on to see what the implications of it were. Not saying it couldn't work, but it isn't a tweak.

Didn't you have 3 AP?

Again, there's no reason to do this here. Do it in House Rules.