There's a review up over on the Codex now: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/rpg-codex-review-wh40k-dark-heresy-2nd-edition.95270/

Haters gonna hate. I completely disagree with the author, but that's no surprise I think. We had 2 threads discussing the same things, let's not create a third one.

It's a fairer take than grimdarkpodcast's.

I don't see how this is an actual balanced review.

The author was in the Beta before and is clearly in favor of having kept the changes. That's a fair point of view, but just because FFG did the rewinding doesn't mean that the game itself is bad.

Actually, his reasoning for the game being bad is that the FFG is smoking the crack pipe and has zero grip on its own mechanics. Every issue he lists, beginning players will have as well, and those are a lot of issues.

I'm predisposed to agree fully on the adventure review, as well. The "official adventures" released lately have been horrendous crap and the one in the DH2 book is by far the worst piece of **** I have read in a long time. I really hope I don't have to explain why and can just leave it at "new acolytes" plus "daemonhost".

A lot of issues that aren't issues to begin with.

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/124885-soooooooo-howd-dark-heresy-turn-out/

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/121142-what-happened-to-2nd-edition/

I guess another upcoming spin of the record is incoming.

So he's claiming that certain combinations in the character creation process are absurd? Yeah well, the player who plays this character still has to explain his choices. If he can't, then that's on the player for being absurd, not the system.

"You can still roll a Techpriest Desperado"

Having a Adeptus Mechanicus background doesn't necessary mean you're a Techpriest.

Page 53:

Perhaps the author should actually read the book first.

"In theory, this allows for a classless system where everyone can eventually get everything."

FFG never claimed that everyone can eventually get everything.

So he hates aptitudes, well, I love them.

If people insist on this, we'll pick his review apart piece by piece.

Wow, that opening post just screams to me that they're going to be overly negative for the sake of it. No reason to read something that's already here.

Read the review. In short: I disagree with most of it. I'm not particularly inspired to elaborate, seeing how the reviewer mostly makes points that I've literally spent years discussing on these boards.

Having a Adeptus Mechanicus background doesn't necessary mean you're a Techpriest.

In fact it does, because you automatically gain the Mechanicus Implants Trait with the AM background. I guess your quote still refers to different kinds of tech-priests.

The implants is a good point, assuming that Menials/Adept minions can't get them to make them more efficient in their work. Still, these are also part of the AM, so not necessary techpriests.

Perhaps an alternative should have been offered in that background to reflect this.

While I generally think the new character creation process is pretty interesting and allowing for a large number of characters, I do also get the feeling FFG wasn't really sure what they wanted out of it, as the chapter keeps going back and forth on how loose or constraining the particular choices are supposed to be. On one hand, the fluff of the AdMech suggests it's not just for the priesthood proper, while the crunch shoves the Mechanicus Implants down everyone's throats. On the other hand, the crunch of AAT clearly gives options for characters who aren't psykers, but the fluff attached to it deals solely with psykers. So on, so forth.

It's a bit hard to get a grip on what the particular steps of the character creation are meant to represent for the final character's place in the world, especially if you want something less stereotypical than a sanctioned psyker or a feral world guardsman or whatnot.

On the other hand, the crunch of AAT clearly gives options for characters who aren't psykers, but the fluff attached to it deals solely with psykers. So on, so forth.

I guess this is reflected by the following on page 51:

Unless it's to find the willpower to overcome what's happening and reaching the psyker to knock him over the head or something. Or like chanting to the Emperor for protection.

Good read. I particularly enjoyed the dissection of the intro adventure, which I haven't read. Having the ludicrous plot and completely unbalanced encounters spelled out like that was entertaining.

I'd really like to see a complete list of everything referenced in DH2 that doesn't actually exist in DH2. I think that would showcase just how little effort FFG put into this game.

On the other hand, the crunch of AAT clearly gives options for characters who aren't psykers, but the fluff attached to it deals solely with psykers. So on, so forth.

I guess this is reflected by the following on page 51:

"Though psykers dominate the bulk of this agency, there are

others. Numerous unblessed humans act as warders and minders,

perhaps on Terra or on the Black Ships, all watching for any signs

a psyker has become a deadly threat."

Admitted, the following doesn't make much sense then.

Background Bonuses:

The Constant Threat: When the character or an ally

within 10 metres triggers a roll on Table 6–2: Psychic

Phenomenon (see page 196), the Adeptus Astra

Telepathica character can increase or decrease the

result by amount equal to his Willpower bonus.

Unless it's to find the willpower to overcome what's happening and reaching the psyker to knock him over the head or something. Or like chanting to the Emperor for protection.

The Comrade of a psyker in Only War did something similiar so I can imagine the idea being the same here for non-psykers influencing Psychic Phenomenon of an actual psyker.

This still shows a very strong bias towards the psyker characters, which I feel fails to do justice to the possibilities contained within the chargen system. It kinda feels like FFG wants people to use their more open-ended system primarily to recreate the same character archetypes that were available in the previous edition, and treating other potential combinations as outliers rather than an outstanding opportunity to show us some previously unexplored details of how the Imperium operates.

Good read. I particularly enjoyed the dissection of the intro adventure, which I haven't read. Having the ludicrous plot and completely unbalanced encounters spelled out like that was entertaining.

This is one part of the review with which I fully agree. As well as the one on the adversary section, both in terms of the bloated power level and the poor, bog-standard selection.

If there's one thing I really miss from the old days of the 40kRPG, it's the amount of entirely new content that isn't just directly ported from the TT codices. I'm not sure if it's something FFG no longer feels comfortable with, or if GW keeps them on a shorter leash nowadays, but I feel the games really suffer for that, because these large threats with their own army lists in the TT aren't always the best choice for exploring the setting from the much more personal perspective that a roleplaying game offers.

Did this guy actually read the rule book or just skim it? Twice he mentions that Intimidate can only be used with Strength. Page 96 not only states that skills can be used with alternate characteristics where appropriate, it specifically gives Intimidate as an example!

I don't think he read it throughly at all, most of the things he wrote are based on some sessions he did where he wasn't even a GM himself.

He even played a test game, hence the large focus on just how bad the NPC stats are and how ridiculous the adventure is. Frankly, given this is a player review based largely on how the system performs, I'm inclined to give it more weight than someone who read the rules but never bothered playing, which seems to be the norm for some other reviews I've seen on the net that basically heap laurels on the product for having a nice book cover. Screw that, screw the artwork and all that crap. I don't want to hear about it in the review unless the book has a penchant for falling apart or it's stick figure design. And even then, a review should be about the content of the book and not how nice it looks on the shelf. Which is what this review does and why I think it's well done, even if clearly biased. It just happens to be a bias I agree with enough to favour other d100 systems over this newest iteration of same old.

Here's a rundown for you:

-It's largely copy paste of previously released material

-Acquisition system is lazy

-A less is more approach to skills isn't necessarily a good thing when you're trying to promote something as progressive and free in design.

-The aptitudes system is a thinly veiled class system (I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed)

-NPC stats are collectively better than PC ones, though they appear to be standard humans? Does not compute. Consistency is apparently not a thing in crunch.

-The Askellon sector is generic and lazy in design; it lacks a metaplot

-The trend of putting ridiculous challenges against PCs continues and reaches its climax in tossing NEW ACOLYTES TO A DAEMON HOST

Basically, if this doesn't illustrate a dev attitude of "you shmucks will pay for anything" I don't know what does. Comparing it to, say, eclipse phase, and I see an overpriced hack job for DH2 and an internally consistent product I can get for free, legally, from its devs on the other.

What I'll pick is a no brainer.

Actually, the last fight in Dark Pursuit is only bad for the PCs if they leap right into it instead of thinking. The Heretek has a book with the Daemonhost's true name for example, and he can't die because the adventure said so.

he can't die because the adventure said so.

Which is a really, really bad way to introduce a recurring villain. Literally the worst.

No one said the adventure was perfect, it's in the core because it's an introduction to higher concepts of the universe, and the devs even included the ability to introduce a reocurring villain to new GMs.

You seem to think of this from the perspective of someone who owns and has already played 40k rpgs. It's not intended for that, at least from what I can tell. They always design it for someone new picking up the book.

I'm getting really curious as to why you're even still in this forum Death if you hate this game to throne damned much.

-It's largely copy paste of previously released material

-Acquisition system is lazy

-A less is more approach to skills isn't necessarily a good thing when you're trying to promote something as progressive and free in design.

-The aptitudes system is a thinly veiled class system (I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed)

-NPC stats are collectively better than PC ones, though they appear to be standard humans? Does not compute. Consistency is apparently not a thing in crunch.

-The Askellon sector is generic and lazy in design; it lacks a metaplot

-The trend of putting ridiculous challenges against PCs continues and reaches its climax in tossing NEW ACOLYTES TO A DAEMON HOST

Basically, if this doesn't illustrate a dev attitude of "you shmucks will pay for anything" I don't know what does. Comparing it to, say, eclipse phase, and I see an overpriced hack job for DH2 and an internally consistent product I can get for free, legally, from its devs on the other.

-Some of the material is copy paste, as always there's iteration where they wanted it

-In your opinion it's lazy.

-No one said it was free, it's simply more free than 1st edition

-The PCs don't have to be the best at what they do

-The Calaxis only got meta plot in the adventure trilogies. Askellon has as much flavor as Calaxis did at the core.

-So? They're members of the inquisiton, this stuff happens.

Basically you're just insulting the developers for little more reason than this disappointed you, and comparing it to a different game that you like better is all sorts of useless in this case because it isn't what we're talking about here.

I'm getting really curious as to why you're even still in this forum Death if you hate this game to throne damned much.

This, so much.

I'm sure the developers will take your constant remarks about how the game in your opinion utterly, sucks, fails, blows, whatever, into account.

I do not see how demanding your NPC stats be consistent with PC ones for the same creature and archtype is in any way "insulting", or how calling crap by its name is either. I did not check the NPC stats when I first read through the book, because I generally just make my own. However, when NPC and PC capabilities are so immensely divergent, one does wonder if there was any thought, at all, put into the mechanics.

Oh, wait, they're mostly copy paste.

I think I'm well within my rights to call this a piss poor job at this point. The typical fanboy mewling of "a poor opinion of teh product is insulting teh devs!" makes me less and less predisposed to be nice, or even remotely polite about this.

No death you're actually insulting the devs, by insinuating that they're saying we're all shmucks who will buy anything they put out. It's actually an insult against their very nature. It's not fanboi mewling I'm saying you're insulting them when you are factually insulting them.

That's what I'm talking about.

Play nice now, boys.

(hilarious that "hey, the rules are actually bad!" is met with "don't be mean tia")

Because the rules are better than 1st Eds? You can be mean all you want but the buck stops with me at least when you start insulting devs.

They aren't being malicious in these actions they were making the best of having to retread on OW after the Beta because marketing likely thought it was the best move from the reception the beta was getting.

There's also a difference between being mean and criticizing.