People in this thread are conflating "bias" with "having an opinion". They're not the same thing.

People in this thread are conflating "bias" with "having an opinion". They're not the same thing.

Truer words were never spoken.

Do you think the reviewer is biased?

Just legitimately curious. Can't personally have an opinion on the matter as I didn't read the full "review" I stopped after the opening post as it seemed to me he was going to be purposefully negative for the sake of it and either find material to back that up or misrepresent material which he apparently did.

I wanted a game that brought DH in line with the more modern rulesets (BC and OW). That's exactly what I got. I'm fine with it.

BYE

I wanted a game that brought DH in line with the more modern rulesets (BC and OW). That's exactly what I got. I'm fine with it.

BYE

This. I wasn't particularly sure what I wanted personally, but what I ended up getting was a much smoother DH1, which turns out is what was dreadfully needed for my group as DH1 was grinding our gears.

People in this thread are conflating "bias" with "having an opinion". They're not the same thing.

Truer words were never spoken.

Do you think the reviewer is biased?

Just legitimately curious. Can't personally have an opinion on the matter as I didn't read the full "review" I stopped after the opening post as it seemed to me he was going to be purposefully negative for the sake of it and either find material to back that up or misrepresent material which he apparently did.

I don't think he was biased. I think that, like me, he really enjoyed the themes of DH1, but after playing it long enough started to see all the spots where the rules break down and was excited by the prospect of a second edition. I think the new edition was a big letdown for him.

The article is worth reading. Even if you don't agree with it (I don't agree with all of it) the way it's written is pretty entertaining. The last section in particular.

Aptitudes are a messy fudge, not a compromise. They can't be changed either.

Only War has provided options for changing them since the third supplement (after the screen and adventure, IIRC). Since Aptitudes are almost directly ported over from OW, there's little reason to suspect that a similar set of rules won't appear for DH2 in the near future.

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 one slight error (and he isn't technically wrong) is indicative of having not read it at all. It's 400+ pages foer gods sake!

How was he not wrong; technically or otherwise? QUOTE: "This also doesn’t quite explain why the beta’s system of subskills has been ditched and you can once again only Intimidate with Strength." Note the word 'only'. This is an objectively and provably false statement; and if he'd actually read page 96 of the book that he was "reviewing", he'd have known that.

I wanted a game that brought DH in line with the more modern rulesets (BC and OW). That's exactly what I got. I'm fine with it.

BYE

Having not played any of the game's predecessors at the time of the first beta, I was originally in the camp of not caring about back-compatibility. Now that I have rather a few PDF's from Black Crusade and Only War, my opinion has changed dramatically.

And I too am fine with what I got.

Aptitudes are a messy fudge, not a compromise. They can't be changed either.

Only War has provided options for changing them since the third supplement (after the screen and adventure, IIRC). Since Aptitudes are almost directly ported over from OW, there's little reason to suspect that a similar set of rules won't appear for DH2 in the near future.

Reviewer does raise an interesting point in terms of a fair amount of omitted material from DH1, including a full weapons list. The adventure is so abysmal, it could've been scrapped for "homeworld generation rules" akin to the regiment ones and a proper port of the entire sodding arsenal.

The adventure is so abysmal

That's not a fact, it's your opinion it's abysmal. It's not worse than Maggots in the Meat in my opinion or a couple adventures in PtU or a few of the contest winners.

We, uh, don't Pathfinder over here.

I did run the entire first leg of Shadowrun missions with a few new groups a while back, though. It ran well enough to use as a baseline for comparison and a minimum standard for a beginner adventure.

We, uh, don't Pathfinder over here.

I did run the entire first leg of Shadowrun missions with a few new groups a while back, though. It ran well enough to use as a baseline for comparison and a minimum standard for a beginner adventure.

What does Pathfinder as a verb even entail?

You're using it as a personal baseline, the quality of an adventure is almost an entirely subjective thing.

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 one slight error (and he isn't technically wrong) is indicative of having not read it at all. It's 400+ pages foer gods sake!

How was he not wrong; technically or otherwise? QUOTE: "This also doesn’t quite explain why the beta’s system of subskills has been ditched and you can once again only Intimidate with Strength." Note the word 'only'. This is an objectively and provably false statement; and if he'd actually read page 96 of the book that he was "reviewing", he'd have known that.

In DH beta, it was explicitly, "use this Characteristic for this use of the skill unless there is a compelling reason to use something else" whereas in DH2 it's more the mealy-mouthed, "sometimes X is more appropriate than the normal Characteristic Y but really it's up to the GM". He's not wrong, he just doesn't explain himself very clearly. This isn't the only place he does that.

The adventure is so abysmal

That's not a fact, it's your opinion it's abysmal. It's not worse than Maggots in the Meat in my opinion or a couple adventures in PtU or a few of the contest winners.

How about you go read the article that points out all the problems with the game and the intro adventure and get back to us.

How about you go read the article that points out all the problems with the game and the intro adventure and get back to us.

Alright, I'm back. Railroading is part of published adventures up to this point. Daemonhosts are supposed to be dangerous, and finally reinforcements would likely be really useful here. Which oddly enough may have been what they are going for.

And yet again I ask: what is the point? The new boring Askellon Sector? The terrible character system? The overwhelming feeling of reading and/or playing a hackjob that looks like it was hastily glued together from copypastes and booted out on the market? There is literally no reason to play this tragicomedy instead of sticking with the original Dark Heresy and its hundred million billion splatbooks. Unless you want to experience yet again just how Awesome it is to be playing a team of failcolytes who get outgunned by ******* mall cops.

"boring" "terrible" "hackjob" "booted" "literally" "tragicomedy"

And so much more I likely would have taken issue with had I read the entire thing.

These threads are just tiring at this point, they keep rehashing the same issues that the same people have over and over. I really can't wait for the adventure supplement to come out, at least then you'll have something else rag on.

Like the Doc says; it started with a single link to a review, then 2-4 hours later, it's 4 pages long of the same thing from those other 2 threads.

Also, he uses F_ _ _ once or twice in the review, which throws out any form of professionalism the reviewer might have by my standards

Of all of the critiques of the intro adventure in that article, railroading was the least of them.

Can't be destroyed no matter what because protective box tm? He railed on that pretty long.

"Railroading is part of published adventures up to this point."

It so does not have to be. Especially in such a contrived manner that is in the usual top ten "red flags" or "ways to piss off your players". Modules I actually buy or run with my group tend to do the work for me there, when someone shows up that the characters would plausibly kill and allow for alternatives should the guy bite the dust. Even the completely free SR missions (referenced because...they're in English) did this, and that was years ago. Published adventures have progressed considerably, and so have peoples' expectations of them, at least, around here.

"Railroading is part of published adventures up to this point."

It so does not have to be. Especially in such a contrived manner that is in the usual top ten "red flags" or "ways to piss off your players". Modules I actually buy or run with my group tend to do the work for me there, when someone shows up that the characters would plausibly kill and allow for alternatives should the guy bite the dust. Even the completely free SR missions (referenced because...they're in English) did this, and that was years ago. Published adventures have progressed considerably, and so have peoples' expectations of them, at least, around here.

Never said it had to be. But the adventure is putting forth a story. How that GM modifies that presentation is their own business.

I have a bit higher expectations of an introductionary adventure, there. Plausible alternatives should something derail belong in there, if only to provide inspiration for the beginner (!) DM and cover the most likely possibilities. Given the stats and such of the creatures used, one of those needs to be "how to deal with a total party wipe"; should the players live, possibly because they used reinforcements (which, also, should actually be in the help box of the adventure. A lot of players are unlikely to think of it, especially newer ones new to setting and system. They'll get faceraped.), there needs to be an alternative endings bit where it explains just how recurring villain techpriest would come back from the dead or, possibly even, inquisitorial incarceration (traitor in the inquisition subplot? The necessity to completely destroy the fellow's brain to kill him because he'll build himself a new body? etc.). If that were actually in there, then it would make a better package and I'd be more amiable at its focus as a beginning adventure and maybe just say "it's a bit over the top, but eh, 40k".

Plausible alternatives should something derail belong in there, if only to provide inspiration for the beginner (!) DM and cover the most likely possibilities. Given the stats and such of the creatures used, one of those needs to be "how to deal with a total party wipe"; should the players live, possibly because they used reinforcements (which, also, should actually be in the help box of the adventure. A lot of players are unlikely to think of it, especially newer ones new to setting and system. They'll get faceraped.), there needs to be an alternative endings bit where it explains just how recurring villain techpriest would come back from the dead or, possibly even, inquisitorial incarceration (traitor in the inquisition subplot? The necessity to completely destroy the fellow's brain to kill him because he'll build himself a new body? etc.). If that were actually in there, then it would make a better package and I'd be more amiable at its focus as a beginning adventure and maybe just say "it's a bit over the top, but eh, 40k".

All fair points and all that I agree upon.

The only plausible reason that I can think they likely didn't devote much more time to it is that they might have been strapped for a deadline. Not really excuseable because intro adventures are important flavor pieces for new players, but it happened. It doesn't mean the adventure is factually abysmal. I certainly wouldn't call it great either.

Is there an adventure in the GM Kit? How does that one compare? If anyone's looked at it? Does it contribute a few answers? Is it put together any better?

Reviewer does raise an interesting point in terms of a fair amount of omitted material from DH1, including a full weapons list.

I'll agree with you on this point. I was a little floored that they didn't even include las carbines. But this is now yet another reason that I'm glad for the compatibility with Only War. One of my players is going to be looking for a mortar at some point; I just know it.

faceraped

This argument came up once in the beta forum, but please use language other than this. Thank you!

A brief aside - aimed at nobody in particular - on the subject of "insulting games developers". In this post, "you" is the second-person non-specific. Just don't. Criticise the work by all means, but don't insult the people who worked on it. It's crass, it's hideously impolite, and it hinders your argument.

There are a laundry list of reasons why I've more or less abandoned this forum for RPG.net - amongst them is the rigorous moderation over there, which includes a very important policy for keeping the forum hospitable: no personal attacks on members, and treat games developers as members (which they may well be) for this purpose.

Speaking as a games developer, it's very easy to turn your back on a forum that gives the impression of being hostile to games developers. There are lots of games designers and developers who choose not to engage with communities online because of this hostility. I endeavoured to maintain my online presence and be open about my work (as much as NDAs allowed) while I wrote for FFG, but it's not easy (and it can be dangerously time-consuming when you've got work to do), and a hostile environment only makes it harder.

I'm having a really hard time drumming up any amount of sympathy for game devs who literally copy and paste an old product into a new one and don't proofread that what they pasted makes sense. It's really hard to critique this kind of game design as lazy and have that critique not also apply to the developer.

That said, more moderation on this forum would be a good thing. Not so that nobody gets insulted, but for the times when someone posts something hateful and/or vitriolic and takes issue with getting called on it.

A brief aside - aimed at nobody in particular - on the subject of "insulting games developers". In this post, "you" is the second-person non-specific. Just don't. Criticise the work by all means, but don't insult the people who worked on it. It's crass, it's hideously impolite, and it hinders your argument.

There are a laundry list of reasons why I've more or less abandoned this forum for RPG.net - amongst them is the rigorous moderation over there, which includes a very important policy for keeping the forum hospitable: no personal attacks on members, and treat games developers as members (which they may well be) for this purpose.

Speaking as a games developer, it's very easy to turn your back on a forum that gives the impression of being hostile to games developers. There are lots of games designers and developers who choose not to engage with communities online because of this hostility. I endeavoured to maintain my online presence and be open about my work (as much as NDAs allowed) while I wrote for FFG, but it's not easy (and it can be dangerously time-consuming when you've got work to do), and a hostile environment only makes it harder.

You're bringing it up, so I'm assuming you see some of these comments as being personal attacks. No one has been personally insulting Tim Huckleberry or the other designers. I've made a point to say that other posters have bad opinions it have made dumb statements, rather than saying that they themselves are dumb. One of the biggest problems of the Internet is the ability for people to create little walled off enclaves of like-minded folks who never criticize each other. This is not conducive to any kind of creative endeavor. You're not going to find any great artists who didn't have to deal with criticism. It's nice that lots of game designers post on rpg.net, but the biggest flaw of that site is an inability to call out people for having garbage opinions. Several years ago, an acquaintance of mine interviewed for a position in FFGs games division. When asked about his experience with FFGs product, s/he mentioned the terrible editing and poor rulebook organization. The interviewer was actually surprised to hear this. Years later, and FFG STILL has a reputation for poor editing. Either the company isn't listening, or it doesn't care. It is not an unfair criticism to say that copying and pasting a rulebook is LAZY. Any other kind of art or product, and it would be completely decried. I know FFG has a budget for art and production design, so why not the mch less expensive editing and writing? Like, I love FFG products, warts and all, but the new edition of dark heresy just sticks out as the worst example of their bad habits (poor editing, unbalanced/untested rules, style over substance, always pushing for people to buy expansions, etc.). Im sorry if it hurts the designers' feelings to have their product dumped on, but the gleams of innovation from the first beta are what make the current edition all the more disappointing. I know the designers are capable of better than this!