Anyone else think FFG should do a 3rd printing of Dark Heresy? The errata is the size of a novella. My friends and I have given up on trying to play the game because of the inconvenience of looking back and forth between the errata and the rulebook. They put out a second printing, and then offered 10 more pages of errata 3 weeks after the book was put on the shelves. If they had put out the errata before the book came out, noone would have bought the hunk of junk. Any opinions?

chagan said:

Sorry, but you stopped playing because you had to look up things in two 'books'?

Whilst it hasn't stopped us playing I would emphatically endorse a 3rd print run, the number of errors are staggering and I own the BI core book. I was tempted to buy the FFG edition but it rectifies very little.

I suspect that my group will ditch the DH rulebook as much as possible and refer to the RT book as our generic 40k rules book for our continueing DH campaign.

Although I find the "size of a small novella" to be a bit of an exaggeration, (one example would be the fact that a few pages of the "novella" only lists the starting skills and talents on both the character creation chapter and the relevant careerpath. This wasn't really necessary from the beginning, but they did it anyway). I would probably buy a 3rd printing that has included all the things from the errata.

I tend to frown upon erratas in general. I don't want "a book and several printed pieces of paper" I want the book, and the book alone. Of course I am lenient to the fact that errors can occur and that they should be adressed, but the intent should be to finalize the product and not having the customers settle for a book with several pieces of paper.

A 3rd printing, hopefully with no upcoming errata to it would be awesome!

Although, I'd prefer if FFG had this on the really low priority list. I want Radicals Handbook, Ascension and the rest of the Haarlock trilogy before any 3rd prints...

Varnias Tybalt said:

I agree completely - plus with funds being very tight these days I'd rather spend the money on Rogue Trader or one of the forthcoming DH books.

I agree with nerd king. Just hope the books I may buy in the future don't have so many errors!

Well, I would be very willing to buy a 3rd print which includes the errata.

However, I would much prefer a PDF version that includes them...

To be perfectly honest I really don't see the need for a 3rd printing, would rather it got left until Dark Heresy 2nd Edition. The Erratta isn't too bulky to be honest (I have the second printing of the core rulebook which some Errata has been included in anyway) and I don't tend to enjoy games where someone is always double checing all the rules to make sure something is done exactly right. If something isn't clear, that's what house rules are for.

Get cracking with the additoinal supplements instead I say.

Personally I plan on just using the RT rules for DH.....

Very much agree that I would rather see supplements then a 3rd reprint.

Replicant253 said:

The problem with that is, the worse part of DH is the fact that the character classes are so messed up. To constantly have to reference the DH, RT, and the errata just to use one of the DH character classes will drive me crazy. I'd rather chew broken glass.

I guess my group is use to etiher using 3-4 books, or 1 book and a 10+ page house rule. Current one of the other GM is running star wars. I make use of 3-5 books. (Main book, Jedi book, 1-3 books for items, droid, crafting, and ships)

chagan said:

I totally agree.

Dalnor Surloc said:

And I play nWoD games, so if I'm using less than 6 books, I'm doing something wrong, so lots of books means nothing to me.

The problem with that is, the worse part of DH is the fact that the character classes are so messed up. To constantly have to reference the DH, RT, and the errata just to use one of the DH character classes will drive me crazy. I'd rather chew broken glass.

Constantly? You mean, constantly as in "all the time in playing"? Or constantly as in "At the points where I spend XP, which generally happens outside actual game play"? And why do you think you need RT?

I do admit that I took the easy way out of that one - I just use a pdf published on Dark Reign (and referenced in a sticky thread in the main forum here) that compiles all the correct advancement tables. Yep, I'm cheap like that.

Have to agree on seeing the other books before a 3rd print as well. As for the the masses of errata, well I found one quick print of the mistakes, some scissors and a pile of blu-tack and patience soon resulted in a mistake free book.

The amount of errata is no problem, if you have the FFG version of the book. I was DM'ing a short campaign that took 3 months and a half real time, and to be honest, at the end of the first month we all had memorized the errata. Because the changes are almost intuitive. And me and my group didn't have much experience with the rules and mechanics when we started.

I think that third edition of the Dark Heresy is not necessary, Rather a REVISED one, as well as updated rules for weapon and armor (I feel DH lacking equipment (in case you don't use some unofficial fan-made appendixes), updated career tables and etc.

I've typed up a number of sheets for actions, damage types, equipment, powers, etc., and all of them have the errata or houserules incorporated, so we just go by whatever I have on my laptop. If there's any rule argument, the DM and I hash things out to make sense real quick, I note it down, and we go on. It's nice to be the person with the most familiarity with the ruleset....

Replicant253 said:

Which assumes that RT won't be riddled with errors too!

I sincerely hope not.

DH is one of the most poorly written RPG rulesets i've encountered in a good few years, as is testified to by the weighty errata booklet that's required to actually use it...

I wouldn't mind so much if BI hadn't constantly pumped out pre-release messages in response to the delays like 'hang on, don't worry, we're just making sure it'll be perfect', etc. (paraphrased and probably misinterpreted to support my point - circular arguements are wonderful aren't they? ).

Yes.