Why are you converting weapons from one bad game in a completely different genre of game into DH2 in a vacuum? The wargame has bad rules but they serve a completely separate purpose than weapons in an RPG.

Why are you converting weapons from one bad game in a completely different genre of game into DH2 in a vacuum? The wargame has bad rules but they serve a completely separate purpose than weapons in an RPG.

Yea; if you want to emulate the wargame, then a Grot should be able to pistol-whip a space marine terminator to death in a single hit.

I'm mildly curious what this mysterious function weapons have in an RPG is. Enlighten me

Out of all the versions of the plasma gun I've read, though, I think I like Radwraith's approach best. Plasma is supposed to be two things: Rare, and reliable in its damage output. A high fixed number does this nicely. I'm also going to have a look at Cogni's supplement now. I read things I like and am tempted to apply to various weaponry.

COgnizar psychic supplement in the house rules is a very good approach to use the improvement of the actual psychic system without being so limited as we actually are by the few psychic powers there is.

Have fun!

Well as far as mechanics go. The psyker stuff is really different. Now from DH1 to RT it got changed a lot, from RT-OW it stayed the same, and then in DH2 they changed it again. It's not bad, just different. I imagine the change was made to nerf really high level psykers, and to encourage low PR manifestations more so than the previous system. I get the mechanics behind it, and it's a fully valid interpretation of the setting. The warp taking a great physical toll and effort to channel without sputtering out. But personally mechanically and story wise, I prefer psykers lashing out, shooting fools with 12 PR, and being mini WMDs that with extreme willpower can shape the warm into something a little more directed.

Besides that it's mostly OW rules changes. Which I think are just a straight up improvement for the most part. New weapon qualities, reasons to fire once, etc. I know that as the games have gotten on, the player characters have become a bit tougher to kill. Part of that is players figuring out the system (buy toughness, carapace, laser sights, max out avoidance, and stay behind cover) and part of that is the general power level coming up a bit. The default character is no longer expected to have most of their stats in their 20s.

If you really want the rules still accommodate that sort of game. Take their base stats down a bit, give them like 2 fatepoints, and play real tight with gear. Sorta like how some guys liked running all acolyte DH1 games, where these unarmored desk jockeys were in epic life and death struggles with nacro thugs with stub pistols.

I've been considering running a game of Dark Heresy with my group as a break from the high power levels and less subtlety in Rogue Trader, and was wondering which edition was better, overall of course, but also particularly in the areas of:

-Compatibility with Rogue Trader/Deathwatch?

-Ease of character creation?

-Starting Power level?

-Customization?

Thanks for anything you have to say on the matter. Ave Imperator!

Only slightly better, but with - yet again -a complete lack of content (lack of vehicles and antagonists) and, unfortunately, a totally broken psychic system that, at best, is much worse than the original.

It's still an utterly convoluted needlessly complex mess. If you want to focus your efforts on antagonists FFG don't include (who knows when or if they will) then you're out of luck. Ridiculous really. No doubt these things will be dripfed across a variety of shiny and expensive books which, as with 1e, will leave you with an enormous bloated collection of tomes that are completely impractical to use.

I wish they'd come up with a better system altogether. This one is a mess. Rolling to determine if nyou get an extra fate point? What a joke.

I've been considering running a game of Dark Heresy with my group as a break from the high power levels and less subtlety in Rogue Trader, and was wondering which edition was better, overall of course, but also particularly in the areas of:

-Compatibility with Rogue Trader/Deathwatch?

-Ease of character creation?

-Starting Power level?

-Customization?

Thanks for anything you have to say on the matter. Ave Imperator!

Only slightly better, but with - yet again -a complete lack of content (lack of vehicles and antagonists) and, unfortunately, a totally broken psychic system that, at best, is much worse than the original.

It's still an utterly convoluted needlessly complex mess. If you want to focus your efforts on antagonists FFG don't include (who knows when or if they will) then you're out of luck. Ridiculous really. No doubt these things will be dripfed across a variety of shiny and expensive books which, as with 1e, will leave you with an enormous bloated collection of tomes that are completely impractical to use.

I wish they'd come up with a better system altogether. This one is a mess. Rolling to determine if nyou get an extra fate point? What a joke.

There is a difference between disliking/hating something personally and calling something outright broken. I see no evidence of the latter and overally I've only heard positive things about the psychic system. I like how you can dynamically determine the strength of your Psychic Powers, the different Focus Power tests (not just Willpower tests) and prerequisites for powers giving an actual reason to invest in characteristics other than Willpower.

The worst criticism I've heard so far (and only on this forum) is that some people find the actual powers boring/lackluster and that's it.

In terms of vehicles, I don't think the DH1 core rulebook had any vehicles? There are vehicle rules in case of DH2 and in case of Hive Desoleum they've added the most common ones for the setting so I think that's fine. If you want more, just suck them out of your thumb or use the content of a previous book or post on this board for input, whatever. Same for antagonists, they've added the ones that were relevant until new supplements come out.

Having a lot of separate tomes/supplements is a general issue with these kind of games. You'll learn where is what over time and the PDF versions are nice to search for something quickly.

DH is not and has never been an investigation game (like CoC, for example). If it was then it wuldn't have pages of critical hit charts and bloated stats for weapons necessitating unwarranted complxity (damage, damage type, penetration, special effects, rate of fire, type, etc - is all of that really necessary?)

I had a look at Enemy Within yesterday and while it looks very nice, I just had to put it back on the shelf. The rules for this game are a complet edisaster for all but the most hardcore gamer/40k fan. I gave up trying to convert 1e characters over, I couldn't justify putting my players who aren't hardcore 40k'ers through such turmoil. It's not fair to expect the psyker player to put up with a substantially worse off character just because FFG cannot write rules properly.

I've been considering running a game of Dark Heresy with my group as a break from the high power levels and less subtlety in Rogue Trader, and was wondering which edition was better, overall of course, but also particularly in the areas of:

-Compatibility with Rogue Trader/Deathwatch?

-Ease of character creation?

-Starting Power level?

-Customization?

Thanks for anything you have to say on the matter. Ave Imperator!

Only slightly better, but with - yet again -a complete lack of content (lack of vehicles and antagonists) and, unfortunately, a totally broken psychic system that, at best, is much worse than the original.

It's still an utterly convoluted needlessly complex mess. If you want to focus your efforts on antagonists FFG don't include (who knows when or if they will) then you're out of luck. Ridiculous really. No doubt these things will be dripfed across a variety of shiny and expensive books which, as with 1e, will leave you with an enormous bloated collection of tomes that are completely impractical to use.

I wish they'd come up with a better system altogether. This one is a mess. Rolling to determine if nyou get an extra fate point? What a joke.

There is a difference between disliking/hating something personally and calling something outright broken. I see no evidence of the latter and overally I've only heard positive things about the psychic system. I like how you can dynamically determine the strength of your Psychic Powers, the different Focus Power tests (not just Willpower tests) and prerequisites for powers giving an actual reason to invest in characteristics other than Willpower.

The worst criticism I've heard so far (and only on this forum) is that some people find the actual powers boring/lackluster and that's it.

In terms of vehicles, I don't think the DH1 core rulebook had any vehicles? There are vehicle rules in case of DH2 and in case of Hive Desoleum they've added the most common ones for the setting so I think that's fine. If you want more, just suck them out of your thumb or use the content of a previous book or post on this board for input, whatever. Same for antagonists, they've added the ones that were relevant until new supplements come out.

Having a lot of separate tomes/supplements is a general issue with these kind of games. You'll learn where is what over time and the PDF versions are nice to search for something quickly.

Rolling doubles as the determining factor for side effects is a terrible idea. It means the psyker's skill has no bearing on whether he can control his power.

If you think having lots of books is fine, then try carrying all the DE1 stuff around.

DH is not and has never been an investigation game (like CoC, for example). If it was then it wuldn't have pages of critical hit charts and bloated stats for weapons necessitating unwarranted complxity (damage, damage type, penetration, special effects, rate of fire, type, etc - is all of that really necessary?)

It wouldn't be doing the 40k setting any justice if we were to have a system that only superficially represents its vast amount of armor and weaponry. So yes, it is absolutely necessary.

Rolling doubles as the determining factor for side effects is a terrible idea. It means the psyker's skill has no bearing on whether he can control his power.

I'm not having trouble in a mechanical sense, only in the fact that the new psyker ryules completely and pointlessly change the abilities of the psyker character.

That and the fact the game's rules are rubbish.

I'm not having trouble in a mechanical sense, only in the fact that the new psyker ryules completely and pointlessly change the abilities of the psyker character.

That and the fact the game's rules are rubbish.

I wouldn't call it pointless, nor facts.

If you can't come up with actual instances of the issues you're having then there is not much room for discussion, other than that you groundlessly hate 2e.

When people start tossing around "It's been established" and other such phrases, an opinion that lists specifically why it dislikes alterations to a ruleset is going to get bashed with faux facts that, as of yet, simply have not been established anywhere.

The only thing that has been thoroughly established in the ring-around circus that is DH1 vs DH2 so far is that both "systems" are ridiculously similar to the point the differences are minutae. There are next to no mechanical differences in the functionality and methodology of either. The devil here is in the details. Some people see these details as an improvement, others as a detriment.

Additionally, the chargen has been changed to a different kind of class-based system. This is not functioning as advertised, but apparently well enough for some people. For others, less so. BP vs. class based vs. narrative is essentially a matter of taste, really.

That is pretty much all that "has been established" and as fair a summary as I can manage.

An opinion that falls short when asked for the actual specifics.

Edit: Or at least I haven't seen any specifics yet rather, other than "I hate system X or system Y or everything".

DH1 had a lot of stuff I liked, but it was rough, untamed, etc.

When they got Black Crusade and Only War out, I took all the rules I liked in them (full auto, lightning attacks, variable setting for lasrifle, etc.) and put them in my own games. I had also begun an alternative ascension system with level for all the officio assassinorum, inquisitor, savant, etc. which was less broken and more steady in progression than the ascension book.

When they announced Dark Heresy 2 in the way it actually is, I was happy because it gave everything I was working toward without having to open 30 documents I created (and, also, without having to create said documents). The difference between DH1 and DH2 is significant, but I master a group at DH1 and a groupe at DH2 and the differences are small enough for me to be okay with both.

I would say that indeed, between OW and DH2, there isn't a big difference, I see DH2 as an update of the Dark Heresy line to where the rules are set.

At no point in that post did I type anything of the sort that you are arguing against. It is a summary, nothing more.

To clarify:

Fundamental changes -> Changes to the core mechanics. Some games have done this over new editions, others do not.

Minutae-> Details and small rules that are not core mechanics.

Just so we're on the same page here.

At no point in that post did I type anything of the sort that you are arguing against. It is a summary, nothing more.

To clarify:

Fundamental changes -> Changes to the core mechanics. Some games have done this over new editions, others do not.

Minutae-> Details and small rules that are not core mechanics.

Just so we're on the same page here.

Well, you seemed to imply that DH2 isn't different now (core mechanics or otherwise) compared to DH1. Hence my reaction that states that it is different enough on its own to warrant a new edition.

Edit: But it seems you wrote it as a general statement, so fine. There aren't really vast core mechanic changes as you stated, but there don't have to be any either per se.

I can't say I'm surprised! Signoftheserpent has "Hated" everything I've seen him post in since DH1! He has earned at least a couple of reports for personal attacks when you don't agree with his take. This is not news.

I do have a question for Sign and a couple other's in his camp though: You guys "hate" the entire 40k RPG or so I'm led to believe at least. In one case, The poster even derided the Original 40k TT rules as bad and continues to pound on the 40k RPG. If this whole thing is so distasteful to you guys, why do you still play? Why do you bother with us peasants on the forum?

I'm just sayin... I've walked out on games I didn't like before. Why don't you?

Well, you seemed to imply that DH2 isn't different now (core mechanics or otherwise) compared to DH1. Hence my reaction that states that it is different enough on its own to warrant a new edition.

Edit: But it seems you wrote it as a general statement, so fine. There aren't really vast core mechanic changes as you stated, but there don't have to be any either per se.

Yes, I was trying to keep my tone fairly neutral there. I felt saying "there don't have to be" might be too much for the facts part of the post. Editions are a funny thing, really. I've seen fresh ones that are virtually identical to their predecessors aplenty, and others, that are so different, you think you're reading an entirely different book.

I think it's just Serpent, the rest do like the 40k setting but are disappointed in the rulebook sold as is.

Edit: And when I say Serpent, I mean at the very least his group doesn't have a direct affinity with the 40k setting.

I can't say I'm surprised! Signoftheserpent has "Hated" everything I've seen him post in since DH1! He has earned at least a couple of reports for personal attacks when you don't agree with his take. This is not news.

I do have a question for Sign and a couple other's in his camp though: You guys "hate" the entire 40k RPG or so I'm led to believe at least. In one case, The poster even derided the Original 40k TT rules as bad and continues to pound on the 40k RPG. If this whole thing is so distasteful to you guys, why do you still play? Why do you bother with us peasants on the forum?

I'm just sayin... I've walked out on games I didn't like before. Why don't you?

I think it's just Serpent, the rest do like the 40k setting but are disappointed in the rulebook sold as is.

Fair point.

There are certainly different degrees of "hate" but my point is still valid!

"There is no innocense, there are only degrees of...hate"?

Honestly, I don't "hate" second edition. People insisting it is infinitely better than DH1 and the next best thing since sliced bread do drive me up the wall, though. I'm really far more neutrally disposed when I don't hear angel choirs and see shining laurel wreaths. Maybe I'm just a grumpy barbarian Bavarian

I also massively prefer facts listings to fairly coloured feedback, so when a lot of people praise things to high heavens, I will tendentially shoot them down on principle simply to provide a more or less valid counter, so that the potential customer can make an informed decision and knows there are divergant opinions.

I lurk in the house rules section a lot as well. It's got some good stuff.

Big sentences, like the one stated earlier where the rules/DH2 are supposedly being "a complete disaster" irks me. I honestly can't take these kind of people seriously if they're unable to resort to these kind of sentences.

There is a difference between criticism and bashing.

DH2 is far from being "perfect" or even near perfect, but it does the job well enough.