40% is an expert because you have a +60 bonus on trivial tasks. If you're "failing most of the time", you're playing the game wrong. As for the "novel" acquisitions system? Open the Ascension book, page 13.

40% chance without bonus of doing one thing, it is far more than a modern competent solider of touching someone with a shot from their carbine.

I don't see how this his incompetent, when a single shot brings this to 50%, and we do not take into account the bonuses of range. Characters in DH are way stronger than a majority of heroes in movies. And we know that they are very strong.

I just spoke about touching straight, but having 40% chance, without a computer or something, of knowing something about xenos, demons or else, is a very high level of knowledge. Yes, there are bonuses and also maluses, but first of all, a character is very strong in my opinion.


Personnaly, my players never had problem with both system. I just like better influence because we don't need to concern ourselves with money anymore. But both were good in my expercience, no problem with them.

Oh my god. The "PCs in DH1 are less competent" bollocks again. Stop. Just stop. The rules haven't changed notably. Your base stats haven't changed. Skills have actually gotten more expensive. And yet: It's the same ******* game. If your PCs are pennychasing because they're too dumb to ask for a gun at a temple when there's cultists about, that's their problem. If you won't allow that? That'S YOUR problem as a GM.

If you're not running what the premise of the core book is, but a different type of campaign, and categorically ignoring the many many pages of standard equipment for Arbites, clerics, sororitas, etc., that's your problem. It's not the system. DH1 allows many different levels of play, even in the oh so "horrific" RAW take, which is a lot more diverse than 2e shills like to pretend.

Yes, DH2 starting characters are better.

1) base stats can be higher now since it gives the option of using 25+2d10 for stat generation. This puts the stats at the same level as black crusade characters. Its not a side bar or anything and first edition had nothing like that.

2) Skills are not more expensive! Almost every skill in second edition is the combination of 2-3 skills from first edition so you get way more bang for your buck(1st ed search +awareness= 2nd ed awareness). 100-300 xp was also generally the cost of skills within a career which lines up pretty well with 1 or 2 matching aptitude costs.

3) 1000 starting xp is a lot more than 300 and you aren't limited to career rank 1 purchases (which tended to be pretty limited) so you can potentially start with much more potent skills and talents and can specialize more.

4) Fate points are much higher this edition. Some homeworlds couldn't get more than 2 and most homeworlds had the possibility of starting with only 1 in first edition. Now almost all characters will have 3, you can't ever start with only 1, 2 is rare, 4 is possible and there is an off chance of 5.

5) Starting equipment is better. Arbitrator as an example: you get a clip 8 shotgun now instead of a clip 2 shotgun (or a shockmaul instead of a club, shockmaul also receiving a huge boost), you get full carapace instead of a flak vest or mesh vest. Add to this that you get at least a couple scarce items in place of 1st edition's pittance of starting money.

6) Special abilities in 1st ed had about as many downsides as upsides. Now very few have any downsides at all and at least some of the upsides are very powerful.

We are comparing the economy systems between games. A discussion not helped by bring up potential GM generosity and that they can just give players stuff they ask for. GMs can do that in both editions equally so it really adds nothing to the discussion. Some of the complaints about why people dislike the influence system are specifically because their players won't stop asking for stuff but in first edition the money put a cap on this sort of begging so your solution is not helpful.

40% is an expert because you have a +60 bonus on trivial tasks. If you're "failing most of the time", you're playing the game wrong.

If the majority of your tests are Trivial rather than Challenging, you're playing the game wrong.

More importantly, your attempts to change the subject with faux-outraged distractions aren't helping your case that I'm wrong about DH1 's hard currency economy basically requiring looting. Please make that case: monthly income for most Careers is calculated to be insufficient to cover basic room and board; so, how are you supposed to upgrade your equipment to face increasingly more powerful opponents, without D&D -style coin-chasing? Keep in mind that if the answer is "The GM can override the hard currency system by fiat", that's pretty much an admission that DH1 's hard currency economy doesn't work.

I'm just going to ignore actual rules text and pretend it doesn't exist.

DH1, Ascension, p.13ff.

Your post isn't worth a counter argument, because it's pretty much an outright lie in its crass and false portrayal of the ruleset. It also postulates a mechanic as "superior" that already existed in DH1. TLDR: Your argument is idiotic. Demanding a counter argument is ludicrous, when you won't even check your own facts.

40% is an expert because you have a +60 bonus on trivial tasks. If you're "failing most of the time", you're playing the game wrong. As for the "novel" acquisitions system? Open the Ascension book, page 13.

Who's claiming its a novel acquisition system? I've seen no one make that claim and considering the influence system has been in every 40k RPG system since Ascension in one name or another it would be stupid to do so.

Other than your use of the word novel (adj.- new or unusual in an interesting way), the only other was by Adeptus-B who was using it as a noun ( a fictitious prose narrative of book length).

Are you reading a different thread than the rest of us?

I'm just going to ignore actual rules text and pretend it doesn't exist.

DH1, Ascension, p.13ff.

Your post isn't worth a counter argument, because it's pretty much an outright lie in its crass and false portrayal of the ruleset. It also postulates a mechanic as "superior" that already existed in DH1. TLDR: Your argument is idiotic. Demanding a counter argument is ludicrous, when you won't even check your own facts.

What rule is he ignoring? If referring to difficulty, he said most tests shouldn't be trivial which is true. Even with the expanded difficulty table challenging is still in the middle so should generally be the average base difficulty.

If referring to influence, the expanded rules in Ascension were specifically for ascension level characters representing the shift from mere acolyte to full throne agent and specifically state that they do not replace any of the core rules and that they are for characters that have advanced beyond rank 8. (Ascension pg. 8)

Even in DH1 the influence system was superior to the throne gelt monetary system from the core rulebook (which again it did not replace, characters still had to pass rank 8 for it to apply if going by the book).

You really aren't making much sense. Why are you even here if you aren't wanting to discuss the topics or read people's posts? As far as checking facts Adeptus-B and I are bringing up rules points while you are simply throwing around insults and putting words in peoples mouths.

Adeptus-B is postulating that DH1 is inferior because it uses money for every necessity an acolyte might need. The alternative are influence systems in the 40k line. This is ludicrous because DH1 very much has the influence mechanic, elaborately and at length, for anything an acolyte cell might actually need for their jobs. This leaves the wages open for personal expenses, fluff costs in other words, while the inquisition is your main provider.

The interpretation that you can only use it beyond rank 8 and that, otherwise, you do not have access to jack **** is mindboggeling. You do not suddenly enter the inquisitorial hierarchy at ascension level. On creation, you are already part of a cell, under a throne agent, who has an influence characteristic for your entire cell (base: 40). Just because you do not have the authority to make your own requisitions prior to ascension does not mean you never talk to your superiors, or tell them the job requires the following assets. Influence decreases due to failure. If a mission fails because the acolytes are underequipped or in a cell for having to pillage the populace for gelt, your throne agent's influence will take a substantial hit. This rule is just as true for NPCs as PCs, and your acolytes are not operating in a sodding void.

I should note that not only is the Influence system in Ascension in a supplement intended for high-powered characters, but it actually postdates Rogue Trader (published in 2010, RT Core in 2009). And it's very much presented as limited to those high-powered characters, since the book goes on at length about the ability of "an Inquisitor and his Throne Agents" to wield Influence and such. "Throne Agent" isn't a term the book bandies around lightly, but rather as a formal statement that the PCs are no longer mere Acolytes. (Check page 8, there's a short sidebar.)

DH1, Ascension, p.13ff.

The Influence and Acquisition rules from Ascension are intended to replace the hard currency economy of DH1 , and are intended to be used only after Rank 8, when the PCs are promoted from Acolytes to full Throne Agents.

The interpretation that you can only use it beyond rank 8 and that, otherwise, you do not have access to jack **** is mindboggeling. You do not suddenly enter the inquisitorial hierarchy at ascension level. On creation, you are already part of a cell, under a throne agent, who has an influence characteristic for your entire cell (base: 40). Just because you do not have the authority to make your own requisitions prior to ascension does not mean you never talk to your superiors, or tell them the job requires the following assets. Influence decreases due to failure. If a mission fails because the acolytes are underequipped or in a cell for having to pillage the populace for gelt, your throne agent's influence will take a substantial hit. This rule is just as true for NPCs as PCs, and your acolytes are not operating in a sodding void.

That's a perfectly valid House Rule, but it's absolutely not the Rule As Written, which is what I'm talking about (-and that's beside the fact that Ascension is an optional supplement and not core rules). The fact that you felt the need to make up such a rule to make DH1 's hard currency system work without looting makes my case, not yours .

And who do you work for, prior to rank 8? Whose influence is, in part, determined by your success or failure?

The implication is that Acolytes are far lower on the pecking order than Throne Agents; both DH1 Core and Ascension reinforce this in their own ways. Thus you're working for the same Inquisitor over your entire career, but only once you've reached a certain level of prestige and distinction (read: reached Ascension ranks) are you on a first-name basis with that Inquisitor.

This book contains a wealth of new, additional rules to enhance the experience of your Dark Heresy campaign. Ascension takes Dark Heresy Acolytes to the next tier, bringing them to greater heights of both power and peril... for the Inquisition is rife with bitter rivalry, treacherous schemes, and enemies far more deadly and dangerous than mere cultists. This is the book that details what happens to a Dark Heresy character who advances beyond Rank 8.

[...]

One important distinction introduced in this book is that the player characters are no longer assumed to be Acolytes. Instead, they are now Throne Agents, people who are trusted and relied upon by the Holy Ordos of the Inquisition. In the name of the God-Emperor of Mankind, the player characters do the work of the Inquisition on a whole new level.

To say that looting and treasure hunting is not a theme of Dark Heresy is like saying the Ecclesiarchy has no interest in Relics and that Tech Priest don't care about gear or technology, or scribes have no personal research projects.

I guess everyone in this thread simply assumed (correctly), that "looting" in this context refers to excessive salvage with a focus on gaining wealth. No-one (I hope) would say that a PC should never pick up anything .

The reason I said I hand waved many of the interactions is because the rules simply say to do so. You want a Laz gun or a charge pack on a Hive world? Look at modifiers and fine they are plentiful meaning it is auto acquisition. Want to bribe some bouncer to let you into a club? Roll an influence test to see if you have petty change

And by the rules in DH1 you only check Availability and then reduce the amount of monies on your character sheet. What's the difference?

Why bother to establish several characters, a chain of resources and do the nuacning or roleplaying for when the system tells you not to pay any attention to said interaction. If it does not add anything to the game, it does not have any fun factor or useful logistics in any noticeable regard, it should be removed, which the influence system does so.

Now it sounds like you are complaining about something you've previously complained about the lack thereof.

Yes, I suppose you don't have to put in that much work. But the same goes for paying with Throne Gelt in DH1. Why did you expand on this principle in one game, but can't see it work in another? Should not the players' reaction to it be the same, if they'd have to jump through the same hoops? Whether they are paying with abstract or detailed wealth should not matter much if they still have access to the same actions to determine the outcome.

Literally the only thing you are missing out is the beancounting - which can absolutely be fun in its own right, in that your character can have a clear overview about what they can afford when, and plan their purchases in advance. Yet I maintain that this is an aspect of gameplay more suited to games where the acquisition of personal wealth should play a bigger role in context with the characters' lives, and personally , I just don't see Inquisitorial agents thinking like that.

Next thing you know people are going to ask their Inquisitor for a raise or paid overtime ...

I just want to point out that in 1.0 my players did ask for raises and if they had succeeded or please the inquisitor she gave them a higher allowance for their missions.

To say that looting and treasure hunting is not a theme of Dark Heresy is like saying the Ecclesiarchy has no interest in Relics and that Tech Priest don't care about gear or technology, or scribes have no personal research projects. Perhaps you meant, wealth acquisition? Which in character creation is citing as being an example of what one of your acolyte goals can be.

Perhaps I should clarify, I was referring to this line from your previous post "My players regularly found chests with gems, cash and generic or rare items". That is the bit that feels more like D&D to me than Dark Heresy. This sort of small scale cash grab, treasure hunting is not in theme with Dark Heresy 2nd ed, in my mind. It is perfectly fitting to the 40k setting as a whole of course. It works great for Black Crusade! It was even far more fitting in 1st ed when the players were dirty, poor, downtrodden nobodies but it seems to me 2nd ed is a bit more heroic in the scale of the starting PCs. For example why would an arbitrator who also works for the inquisition need to buy his own ammo. Why can't he just go ask for more at the arbites armory.

Influence represents wealth very well, the treasure hunting you described does not represent wealth but simply collecting money. Totally different scale. In character creation it talks about a possible character motivation being the gathering of wealth and power. Looting chests for gems and taking the cash out the enemies wallets is not building wealth and power. Most 2nd ed Dark Heresy characters are above the need for this sort of piddly pocket change as evidenced by most characters having an influence value high enough to get basic weapons, cloths, food, a roof over their heads etc without much trouble.

The examples you give there aren't even remotely the same thing that I was talking about. Of course characters would and should collect religious relics and archeotech that they find as well as any weapons, tools and equipment that could be helpful and any heretical objects that need to be secured or destroyed. However even in first ed they shouldn't be selling most of that stuff for cash. Holding a relic hostage demanding the specific organization pay before you give it to them sounds potentially heretical and is a good way to get a flamer or plasma pistol to the face when dealing with the ad mech or ministorum and selling to anyone else is definitely heresy. Getting peer talents and influence representing good will and favors makes far more sense than them writing you a check for the STC or the jaw bone of Saint Such and Such.

I will also point out there is nothing stopping you from still doing this sort of treasure creation. When the party goes to sell their box of treasures rather than saying they get x amount of throne gelt you say they get x amount of influence instead (one arbitrary number instead of another, whats the difference) or let them trade it for items of a particular rarity or let them build the gems into an item they are crafting to improve the items quality etc. You can even have them take charm, deceive or commerce tests to get a better deal or if they fail maybe a worse deal as they get ripped off.

Or maybe you have never read the novels or background or played the tabletop? The whole meaning behind 40k is customization, gear and weapons of super and outlandish proportions placed in a dark, foreboding and hostile grim future. Yes, Dark Heresy used to be about investigation and roleplaying but 2.0 is much more combat oriented: in example, the warband. Nearly a third of all the missions (in my games) the Inquisitor gives the group are retrieval, investigative or acquisition missions for particular items; be heretical, tombs of knowledge, people or weapons. I disagree with your opinion, not that you are wrong per say, but your reasoning is.

I am very familiar with the setting. I have played all the roleplaying lines at one point or another starting with DH1 when it first released and have played the tabletop wargame for years. I can't recall a single time when Eisenhorn's or Ravenor's agents searched corpses for cash/jewelry or went hunting for chests filled with treasure or sold an artifact or heretical book for the money to buy a new gun.

"super and outlandish proportions"- I feel this is better handled by an abstract system representing wealth, favors, blackmail targets, investments, physical assets, reputation etc. than a simple money system ever possibly could on its own. And again I'm not saying there is anything wrong with looting useful stuff to replace current equipment or taking things that acolytes would collect as part of their job with the inquisition or their adeptus. I'm saying gathering random useless valuables to sell is unbecoming of a servant of the Emperor. It should be the rare and looked down upon acolyte cell that walks out of every heretic nobles house with sacks full of all the silverware, best quality cloths and jewelry to sell.(DH1 money). They should be confiscating the whole house and everything in it to turn into a base(DH2 wealth as represented by influence).

In previous threads I've argued about the game's combat orientation. It is no more combat oriented than first edition. If anything there are more mechanics for the noncombat encounters than ever before, with the disposition rules and subtlety and influence. Sure they cut some talents but most of those had no actual mechanical effect or very minor situational effect. Most skills are non-combat oriented as well.

Do your character's then go and sell those objects that they collected specifically for the inquisitor? If not then I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion. These sorts of missions are no different in first edition or second and are not impacted by the mechanical form the in-game economy takes. Again I was specifically referring to your statement about the party finding chests full of money and jewels and random other useless valuables of which the whole purpose was to sell.

My GM generally has us hunting cults or individual heretics, uncovering their destructive plots and stopping them before they come to fruition. We are rarely tasked with actively seeking particular items. Occasionally we find some, especially heretical ones that need to be destroyed but its generally not our set goal. We also obviously find the occasional weapon or tool that we decide to keep.

To each their own on how they wish to do it. I personally find the influence system to be too abstract for my liking. Though I hear the same complaint about the lack of a structure for investigations. I never cared that they didn't have a rules set or dedicated tables for investigations because I personally believe that is the whole point of the GM to craft that story and those interactions.The same can be said about the influence system, simply the GMs job to make something up, which is true. The influence system makes sense to me, especially for Inquisitors if not Acolytes or the game expansions; Rouge Trader, Chaos et certa. To use money in those games would not be wrong but the sums needed would be impractical so they abstracted them. But for Acolytes, the influence system is testy and not wholly justified. The reason I said I hand waved many of the interactions is because the rules simply say to do so. You want a Laz gun or a charge pack on a Hive world? Look at modifiers and fine they are plentiful meaning it is auto acquisition. Want to bribe some bouncer to let you into a club? Roll an influence test to see if you have petty change? Or just give a huge bonus modifier so they are guaranteed to pass, but then why bother with the test? Why bother to establish several characters, a chain of resources and do the nuacning or roleplaying for when the system tells you not to pay any attention to said interaction. If it does not add anything to the game, it does not have any fun factor or useful logistics in any noticeable regard, it should be removed, which the influence system does so. More importantly the influence system you can tell when looking at the rarity modifiers is poorly implemented. At this point it is silly and I feel pointless to bother with traditional gear acquisition with the system. I have my own system which works well with influence, but it is forced and not fun for me or the players which is why we all agreed to downplay it so we can focus more on the things they do enjoy about the new edition. The influence system makes crude sense and works well enough. It is great for players and GMs who don't like details and wish to quickly get through any logistics, in which case it actually excels. But to leave wealth, gear, equipment and resources as a chance die, simply seems lazy to me.

I think 1st ed Ascension did it the best. It blended the influence with cash by leaving in a way to roll influence to get spending money. Ascension's influence system was also just more fleshed out with options for acquiring big scale items, rules for just borrowing stuff and acquiring multiples of things to help either equip an army with lasguns or to ensure the whole party can get the rebreathers that you'll all need without needing to make a roll for every player individually.

I think DH2 has changed what the acolytes are relative to DH1 which is why influence is more appropriate now. The characters start out closer to Eisenhorn level throne agents rather than terrible losers like they started in DH1. Because of this, influence now makes more sense than keeping track of money on a small scale. The acolytes are mostly adeptus personnel as well as inquisition agents. Both positions come with far more pull than the average citizen scrounging and struggling to survive.They get gear by calling in favors, going to their adeptus armory, filling out paper work etc. more often than by going to the local corner pawn shop.

Nowhere does it say to handwave it anymore than it does for any other interaction test as far as I can see. If you need every rule in the book to specifically say to roleplay the tests then I think you are missing the point of playing a roleplaying game. Perhaps a reread of the "What Is A Roleplaying Game" paragraph is due.

I don't really see why this aspect of it would even be different between DH1 and DH2. 1st ed you'd roll inquiry to find the item then maybe commerce to get the price down then you hand over money, roleplaying all or nothing or somewhere in-between. Failures representing not being able to find the item or not being able to come to an agreement. Now, in 2nd ed, you propose to the GM where you might go to find an item, roleplay out the commerce test and influence test a bit as one, all in the process of finding, negotiating and paying for it with the failure representing not being able to come to an agreement or the contact simply not having what you are looking for. Its exactly the same as the player coming up with a bunch of flattering things to say to an NPC then rolling a charm test and then the GM decides the outcome based on the success or failure.

To give an example, when the scum in our group goes to his underworld black market contact he several times has traded obscura to make the requisition easier. They roleplayed this out as him getting the guy high to make him more mailable in negotiations.

Another example was when our arbitrator went to get better carapace armor and our GM had the arbites requisition officer indicate that it was available because the judge who previously owned it died in the line of duty recently. This then came up later when an arbitrator NPC ally of ours recognized and commented on it.

Roleplaying out specific named contacts for requisitions adds depth to the world and in the commerce rules it even points out, with the difficulty examples, that it should be harder dealing with unfamiliar merchants. I see no problem handwaving requisitioning something as boring and ever-present as a laspack but you could have a whole played out negotiation for something as rare and valuable as a plasma gun.

Using your bouncer example how is that influence test any different than a deceive test, charm test or intimidate test to get past him. Presumably there had to be some kind of in-character discussion with him to get to the point of needing to bribe him (at which point the other social skills could be appropriate depending on how the PCs go about it). Continue it from there with things like, how does the character offer it to him(palming it to him, waving it in his face etc.) perhaps if he's oath bound he takes it as a huge offense, perhaps he tries to worm more money out of them. No different than any other social encounter involving tests. All this could be based off his disposition if you use that system and off how well the influence test goes. If the characters decided to use a social skill instead of bribery would you have them roleplay it? Why is influence any different?

To say that looting and treasure hunting is not a theme of Dark Heresy is like saying the Ecclesiarchy has no interest in Relics and that Tech Priest don't care about gear or technology, or scribes have no personal research projects.

I guess everyone in this thread simply assumed (correctly), that "looting" in this context refers to excessive salvage with a focus on gaining wealth. No-one (I hope) would say that a PC should never pick up anything .

The reason I said I hand waved many of the interactions is because the rules simply say to do so. You want a Laz gun or a charge pack on a Hive world? Look at modifiers and fine they are plentiful meaning it is auto acquisition. Want to bribe some bouncer to let you into a club? Roll an influence test to see if you have petty change

And by the rules in DH1 you only check Availability and then reduce the amount of monies on your character sheet. What's the difference?

Why bother to establish several characters, a chain of resources and do the nuacning or roleplaying for when the system tells you not to pay any attention to said interaction. If it does not add anything to the game, it does not have any fun factor or useful logistics in any noticeable regard, it should be removed, which the influence system does so.

Now it sounds like you are complaining about something you've previously complained about the lack thereof.

Yes, I suppose you don't have to put in that much work. But the same goes for paying with Throne Gelt in DH1. Why did you expand on this principle in one game, but can't see it work in another? Should not the players' reaction to it be the same, if they'd have to jump through the same hoops? Whether they are paying with abstract or detailed wealth should not matter much if they still have access to the same actions to determine the outcome.

Literally the only thing you are missing out is the beancounting - which can absolutely be fun in its own right, in that your character can have a clear overview about what they can afford when, and plan their purchases in advance. Yet I maintain that this is an aspect of gameplay more suited to games where the acquisition of personal wealth should play a bigger role in context with the characters' lives, and personally , I just don't see Inquisitorial agents thinking like that.

Next thing you know people are going to ask their Inquisitor for a raise or paid overtime ...

Exactly, thank you! We seem to be on the same page.

All fair criticisms. My chests of valuables do seem very looty because (I have no shame admitting it) they were. I gave weapons both guns and melee sockets, installing blessed gems would grant them bonuses, sometimes extra damage re-rolls things and the like. Most often, when they scored good cargo they would find crafting material and or cash. Which could be used well... for crafting or simply selling to buy or further their own pet projects. Not always were these chests filled with traditional items, some important bosses or locations would have heretical gear. Which would be better than anything available to them but often would be corrupted. If they took the items, they could gain corruption, insanity, cause suspicion among other agents or even be deemed heretics by their inquisitor or other Imperial organization. Which did happen. Be it others people thoughts or dislikes, I found the setting absolutely perfect for all of these scenarios, and luckily and I think many would agree, the setting is so open and diverse it can fit anyone's' style if presented right.

My biggest criticisms as it has yet to be addressed but simply criticizing my workarounds. Which is true, I play to entertain my players and anything which inhibits the fun or the story, I hand wave if need be. I do not think other people should follow my example, nor do I even recommend it. My main complaint as many others have of influence still stands; it is lazy, can be quite cumbersome and too abstract for my liking.

I'll give a simple problem that my players ran into that I just handwaved because the rules are not useful for this situation. One of my players had a six henchmen which he intended to use as meatshield when going down into a mine to hunt a fleeing heretic and his goons. They wanted to arm them with weapons, armor and gear. Instead of doing individual roles, scarcity and affecting their subtlety for each. I looked at their gear, quality and purpose and just had them roll a single test of influence (autosuccess) just to see DOS. Each DOS gave them better gear for their minions. The influence core idea was helpful here, because I could easily ignore all the rules and the minor details with a single influence roll, but in doing so I ignored all the influence rules and guidelines. It worked, and maybe even as intended, but not as written.

And who do you work for, prior to rank 8? Whose influence is, in part, determined by your success or failure?

The Inquisition, who provide Acolytes a pitiful stipend and, in the actual crunch rules, nothing else. There is a vague mention that an Inquisitor may choose to give the PCs extra equipment, but nothing like a true Influence/acquisition system. Absolutely none of the crunch in Ascension (which, again, is an optional supplement, released 2 years after the core hard currency rules were established) is intended to be retroactive to Ranks 1-8.

All fair criticisms. My chests of valuables do seem very looty because (I have no shame admitting it) they were. I gave weapons both guns and melee sockets, installing blessed gems would grant them bonuses, sometimes extra damage re-rolls things and the like. Most often, when they scored good cargo they would find crafting material and or cash. Which could be used well... for crafting or simply selling to buy or further their own pet projects. Not always were these chests filled with traditional items, some important bosses or locations would have heretical gear. Which would be better than anything available to them but often would be corrupted. If they took the items, they could gain corruption, insanity, cause suspicion among other agents or even be deemed heretics by their inquisitor or other Imperial organization. Which did happen. Be it others people thoughts or dislikes, I found the setting absolutely perfect for all of these scenarios, and luckily and I think many would agree, the setting is so open and diverse it can fit anyone's' style if presented right.

Well now with some more detail I actually more or less think it sounds good, especially if its something your group enjoys. What about the influence system has changed your ability to do this though? Only the cash and the items for trading for cash don't really work and you could just make clear when handing out influence that that stuff is included in the influence reward. Any of the stuff that has potential use (weapons, crafting supplies, etc.) or story value/importance (relics, heretical items etc.) would work the same.

My biggest criticisms as it has yet to be addressed but simply criticizing my workarounds. Which is true, I play to entertain my players and anything which inhibits the fun or the story, I hand wave if need be. I do not think other people should follow my example, nor do I even recommend it. My main complaint as many others have of influence still stands; it is lazy, can be quite cumbersome and too abstract for my liking.

I'll give a simple problem that my players ran into that I just handwaved because the rules are not useful for this situation. One of my players had a six henchmen which he intended to use as meatshield when going down into a mine to hunt a fleeing heretic and his goons. They wanted to arm them with weapons, armor and gear. Instead of doing individual roles, scarcity and affecting their subtlety for each. I looked at their gear, quality and purpose and just had them roll a single test of influence (autosuccess) just to see DOS. Each DOS gave them better gear for their minions. The influence core idea was helpful here, because I could easily ignore all the rules and the minor details with a single influence roll, but in doing so I ignored all the influence rules and guidelines. It worked, and maybe even as intended, but not as written.

I don't see it as cumbersome but agree that at the very least it can be too abstract in what it represents. I also agree that it doesn't feel complete and requires some winging it. Pretty much all the other 40k rpgs requisition systems feel more detailed. For example, the situation you described is addressed in Ascension and Rogue Trader in that there were modifiers for the number of items you were trying to get so requisitioning a crate of lasguns was something actually covered by the rules. I really don't get why this wasn't something included in DH2. Its annoying that if the whole party decides to get microbeads you need a role for each one technically. Only War had pretty detailed charts for adjusting rarity based on location while DH2 only has one little paragraph vaguely saying you can.

I'm also not a big fan of the trading mechanic but can't think of a better way to do it other than being more flexible and handwavey. Maybe tying trading an item more directly to opposed commerce rolls.

Where did he get the henchmen? Would they have had their own equipment beforehand and the PCs were just looking to make it better or was it something like shanghaied manufactorum workers who needed gear from the ground up? Depending on the specifics I might have had them choose what stuff they wanted them to have and just tossed a -10 or -20 on to the normal rarity of the items to get the multiples for the squad(wouldn't allow a crate of plasma guns or other similarly rare tech though)

All fair criticisms. My chests of valuables do seem very looty because (I have no shame admitting it) they were. I gave weapons both guns and melee sockets, installing blessed gems would grant them bonuses, sometimes extra damage re-rolls things and the like. Most often, when they scored good cargo they would find crafting material and or cash. Which could be used well... for crafting or simply selling to buy or further their own pet projects. Not always were these chests filled with traditional items, some important bosses or locations would have heretical gear. Which would be better than anything available to them but often would be corrupted. If they took the items, they could gain corruption, insanity, cause suspicion among other agents or even be deemed heretics by their inquisitor or other Imperial organization. Which did happen. Be it others people thoughts or dislikes, I found the setting absolutely perfect for all of these scenarios, and luckily and I think many would agree, the setting is so open and diverse it can fit anyone's' style if presented right.

Well now with some more detail I actually more or less think it sounds good, especially if its something your group enjoys. What about the influence system has changed your ability to do this though? Only the cash and the items for trading for cash don't really work and you could just make clear when handing out influence that that stuff is included in the influence reward. Any of the stuff that has potential use (weapons, crafting supplies, etc.) or story value/importance (relics, heretical items etc.) would work the same.

My biggest criticisms as it has yet to be addressed but simply criticizing my workarounds. Which is true, I play to entertain my players and anything which inhibits the fun or the story, I hand wave if need be. I do not think other people should follow my example, nor do I even recommend it. My main complaint as many others have of influence still stands; it is lazy, can be quite cumbersome and too abstract for my liking.

I'll give a simple problem that my players ran into that I just handwaved because the rules are not useful for this situation. One of my players had a six henchmen which he intended to use as meatshield when going down into a mine to hunt a fleeing heretic and his goons. They wanted to arm them with weapons, armor and gear. Instead of doing individual roles, scarcity and affecting their subtlety for each. I looked at their gear, quality and purpose and just had them roll a single test of influence (autosuccess) just to see DOS. Each DOS gave them better gear for their minions. The influence core idea was helpful here, because I could easily ignore all the rules and the minor details with a single influence roll, but in doing so I ignored all the influence rules and guidelines. It worked, and maybe even as intended, but not as written.

I don't see it as cumbersome but agree that at the very least it can be too abstract in what it represents. I also agree that it doesn't feel complete and requires some winging it. Pretty much all the other 40k rpgs requisition systems feel more detailed. For example, the situation you described is addressed in Ascension and Rogue Trader in that there were modifiers for the number of items you were trying to get so requisitioning a crate of lasguns was something actually covered by the rules. I really don't get why this wasn't something included in DH2. Its annoying that if the whole party decides to get microbeads you need a role for each one technically. Only War had pretty detailed charts for adjusting rarity based on location while DH2 only has one little paragraph vaguely saying you can.

I'm also not a big fan of the trading mechanic but can't think of a better way to do it other than being more flexible and handwavey. Maybe tying trading an item more directly to opposed commerce rolls.

Where did he get the henchmen? Would they have had their own equipment beforehand and the PCs were just looking to make it better or was it something like shanghaied manufactorum workers who needed gear from the ground up? Depending on the specifics I might have had them choose what stuff they wanted them to have and just tossed a -10 or -20 on to the normal rarity of the items to get the multiples for the squad(wouldn't allow a crate of plasma guns or other similarly rare tech though)

I really need to learn how to use these quote boxes. I'll have to give some explicit examples and a summary of how I and my players worked the original economy, so you and the others can understand my distaste. My first campaign was heavily influenced by the Inquisitor books but modified for flexibility due to a bunch of new players (and my first timing being a GM). I created four unique worlds each with a solid background, major players, government influences and individual goals, all conflicting with the other groups; vying for power and dominance based around the feudal systems. The Inquisitor was a Radical and view the acolytes as cannon fodder. My main tool for pacing the campagin was controlling the groups income. All loot, time (monthy income) and anything they tried to loot could be and was given to them with my planning on how much it they needed to save before buying or acquiring something high powered (boltguns, powerswords and so forth). The bean counting is good for me and my group, because the planets they were visiting had modifiers which simple increased or decreased certain items costs based upon availability; not to extremes but noticeable. I had created three major merchants who the group trusted, (black market, Rogue trader, local Nobel) to a degree and also they could rely on contacts (peers) if they wanted to go outside of that system. The bean counting was and still is good for basic shopping. You need dataslate? You need a backpack? 10 20 thrones. Boom done. Want a really good version of that increase cost acordingly (this adjusted based upon book guidlines and what the players wanted the item to do). Crafting material? Inquisitors handbook had a whole four pages dedicated to crafting which my players loved to use. Want to buy a patron a beer, or the bribe someone throw them 20 thrones or buy them a pack of lo sticks. Subtract the cash and done. All of this worked quickly and easily.

The problem I see with the influence system is lets say you wanted a basic backpack or dataslate, modifiers say its passed plentiful which means don't even roll just give it to them. Why even have a value added to it? More noticably, if you look at the gear, weapons and implants everything is scarce or rare, even things which shouldn't be. They just boosted that value arbitrarily so that these things wouldn't be given automatically, but the influence system implies that they should be. Its whole purpose it to remove the logistics, but then the book reasserts needless rolling, book keeping and modifiers which the whole system was supposed to do away with. As you metioned, my biggest annoyance with the system is the multiple purchases and the unnecessary or automatic rolls. I dislike it. Simple as that. Personal opinion though.

I should also answer you before about what the difference would be of currency vs using the influence rolls. Such as the bouncer, the player loses his money, his personal wealth, even if meager and I can see it in my players eyes when they get annoyed at how greedy a bouncer or an official can be. I like that, when they the players feel connected and invested about such circumstance. My players now willing throw those rolls out, if they fail, fate point, if the still fail, meh. They simply need to find a diffrent method of entry. As you mentioned, charm or intimidate are and were used, I don't honestly see how that is related though as that is a social element not a fiscal one.

Henchmen; sometimes they rile up a locals to assist them, can be peons, or faithful servant wound up by a powerful prayer and speech. Soliticted to help the group. Or in the current reference, they are high enough ranking and of influence (both gameplay and roleplaywise) to have some sway. Their inquisitor gave them henchmen to do with as they see fit. Mostly they stay aboard their ship maintaining and running it, but the group decided this current chase was risky, so they decided to arm their men and have them come with. They got them laz guns, grenades and flak armor, FYI.

Welp, since I've apparently been running the game wrong by applying existing rules to NPCs and having my players actually able to affect things in the setting, I guess I'll just stop.

I really need to learn how to use these quote boxes. I'll have to give some explicit examples and a summary of how I and my players worked the original economy, so you and the others can understand my distaste. My first campaign was heavily influenced by the Inquisitor books but modified for flexibility due to a bunch of new players (and my first timing being a GM). I created four unique worlds each with a solid background, major players, government influences and individual goals, all conflicting with the other groups; vying for power and dominance based around the feudal systems. The Inquisitor was a Radical and view the acolytes as cannon fodder. My main tool for pacing the campagin was controlling the groups income. All loot, time (monthy income) and anything they tried to loot could be and was given to them with my planning on how much it they needed to save before buying or acquiring something high powered (boltguns, powerswords and so forth). The bean counting is good for me and my group, because the planets they were visiting had modifiers which simple increased or decreased certain items costs based upon availability; not to extremes but noticeable. I had created three major merchants who the group trusted, (black market, Rogue trader, local Nobel) to a degree and also they could rely on contacts (peers) if they wanted to go outside of that system. The bean counting was and still is good for basic shopping. You need dataslate? You need a backpack? 10 20 thrones. Boom done. Want a really good version of that increase cost acordingly (this adjusted based upon book guidlines and what the players wanted the item to do). Crafting material? Inquisitors handbook had a whole four pages dedicated to crafting which my players loved to use. Want to buy a patron a beer, or the bribe someone throw them 20 thrones or buy them a pack of lo sticks. Subtract the cash and done. All of this worked quickly and easily.

The problem I see with the influence system is lets say you wanted a basic backpack or dataslate, modifiers say its passed plentiful which means don't even roll just give it to them. Why even have a value added to it? More noticably, if you look at the gear, weapons and implants everything is scarce or rare, even things which shouldn't be. They just boosted that value arbitrarily so that these things wouldn't be given automatically, but the influence system implies that they should be. Its whole purpose it to remove the logistics, but then the book reasserts needless rolling, book keeping and modifiers which the whole system was supposed to do away with. As you metioned, my biggest annoyance with the system is the multiple purchases and the unnecessary or automatic rolls. I dislike it. Simple as that. Personal opinion though.

I make copies of the quote, then delete all but the part I want to respond to in each quote box.

It gave you extra control over balance and pacing. That's fair. At least in my group my GM eventually started ignoring the actual monthly pay rules and just started giving us amounts he thought seemed reasonable. As somebody else mentioned I think one of the bigger issues with the currency system as written was the pay was too low. There was also the problem that in some story situations there was no way to explain the characters getting their paychecks. The way we played it I didn't mind it as much as when we were using it as written.

Your complaints make sense and I even agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just hated keeping track of money and hated how poor characters felt most of the time before my GM house ruled it. Characters for at least the first couple ranks just didn't feel like characters who could have feasibly caught an inquisitor's attention. At least it only had one unit of currency. I hate when games have multiple levels (gold, silver, coppers etc.) especially when they don't make them multiples of 10 different from one another. ugh.

Technically abundant is the next step above plentiful and is a +30. You don't hit automatic until one step higher at ubiquitous.

I just compared availabilities between editions a bit and while a few changed most are the same as they were in first edition.

Very little should be automatically acquired as most places it should follow the availabilities listed. With no "Imperial worlds" per say Hive worlds can be viewed as the "average imperial world". For the most part I would say high tech stuff should get a bonus on a forge world and penalties or outright unavailable on primitive worlds and really low tech stuff could go the other way around but other than that the availabilities work as is. While the rules are a bit fuzzy on this I would also say that bonuses that don't specifically say they change the availability (such as ad mech and admin abilities), don't. So for example a plentiful item (+20) that gets a +20 from a successful commerce test is still plentiful and so is not an autopass it just has a total +40 to the test. This seems to be implied in the availability paragraph as it says the availability stacks with other modifiers rather than saying other modifiers change the availability. If playing it this way you really shouldn't have many autopasses just some pretty easy tests (100s always fail). Also since you are specifically given the freedom to adjust availabilities just never let anything be automatic.

I should also answer you before about what the difference would be of currency vs using the influence rolls. Such as the bouncer, the player loses his money, his personal wealth, even if meager and I can see it in my players eyes when they get annoyed at how greedy a bouncer or an official can be. I like that, when they the players feel connected and invested about such circumstance. My players now willing throw those rolls out, if they fail, fate point, if the still fail, meh. They simply need to find a diffrent method of entry. As you mentioned, charm or intimidate are and were used, I don't honestly see how that is related though as that is a social element not a fiscal one.

One of the distinctions I've been trying to make is the one between money and wealth. Characters in first edition didn't own enough property and have enough money to be considered to have any real wealth until they basically hit Ascension level and gained influence. Paying a bouncer a small bribe is not losing wealth it is only losing money. The currency system only covered money but had no way of reaching a scale appropriate to represent wealth. Influence provides a representation of wealth and connections rather than just cash. This feels more appropriate to me for inquisition agents.

Don't forget that influence test failures can cause influence lose if they have more DoF than their fellowship bonus.

If they are trying to bribe a powerful official or noble you could even require they burn influence to accomplish their goal to represent that it takes a lot to influence someone who already has significant wealth and power and to get that same "greedy jerk" reaction.

I brought up the social skills to highlight how influence tests can be roleplayed and why they should be. Pointing out that in that bouncer example there is really no difference in roleplaing an influence test vs. roleplaying a charm test in the same situation.

Henchmen; sometimes they rile up a locals to assist them, can be peons, or faithful servant wound up by a powerful prayer and speech. Soliticted to help the group. Or in the current reference, they are high enough ranking and of influence (both gameplay and roleplaywise) to have some sway. Their inquisitor gave them henchmen to do with as they see fit. Mostly they stay aboard their ship maintaining and running it, but the group decided this current chase was risky, so they decided to arm their men and have them come with. They got them laz guns, grenades and flak armor, FYI.

If the henchmen were a gift that the players didn't have to roll for I probably just would have had them come with that sort of equipment especially if they were meant to be soldiers or mercenaries. Maybe had the players roll for the grenades. If they had to roll for the henchmen I would have based the equipment the guys came with on the "quality" of soldier they asked to roll for (lasgun guys probably being common quality) or using the medical care table as a guide (standard level doctor is scarce, so standard soldiers can also be scarce)

But yeah, I get the annoyance of having to make this stuff up on the fly. On the bright side the game stayed similar enough to the previous 40k lines that its not too difficult to houserule in some of the stuff from the other games' acquisition systems that its lacking. :/ No system is perfect.

Welp, since I've apparently been running the game wrong by applying existing rules to NPCs and having my players actually able to affect things in the setting, I guess I'll just stop.

Don't get me wrong: your House Rule for merging hard currency and Acquisition sounds like a cool idea- I wish I would have thought of it when I kicked off my DH1 campaign. It's just not the DH1 RAW, which is what I find immersion-breakingly D&D esque.