And while your explanation makes some amount of sense the fact that they bothered to release 4 versions errata makes me wonder why they didn't fix the other things. It surely wouldn't have added much time and I can't imagine I'm the only person to notice say the Psychic Powers/Techniques thing.

Errata creation takes resources as well. Someone has to look at the feedback and judge whether the responses are worth anything and then likely get at least some other people from the design team that were busy with something else to talk about the issue and proposed solutions and even then if they are worth errata in the first place or whether people will fix it on their own and they don't feel the need to give official answer.

Same reason we didn't get a final errata for DH1 after everything was out for it and DH2 was announced likely.

Still it wouldn't take ten seconds to add a sentence specifying that, my only conclusion must be that the designers and editors don't play the game.

One inconsistency that gets me is when they talk about how long a ship cay stay out in the void (RT Core pg 191) they say "Years or Decades". Then later in the book they specify 6 months before **** starts getting bad (RT Core 227).

How do you tend to play it?

6 months away from a system seems like a ridiculously small period of time. Look at nuclear submarines, they seem to me the most like voidcraft.

In game a travel to and back from a single inhospitable system could easily take 6 months+, especially if the warp spits you out some significant distance.

Still it wouldn't take ten seconds to add a sentence specifying that, my only conclusion must be that the designers and editors don't play the game.

It's not that simple. That's what you don't seem to be getting. You want fast answers email them a rule question and post the clarification yourself on here.

You're also factually incorrect. The designers do play, I played DH2 with Tim Huckelbery myself when it was still in the original Beta phase.

You seem to be just assuming they don't care about the game, but you aren't understanding that it's not all in their power to fix this stuff. It's very very similar to the videogame industry in that way. You're blaming designers and developers when it's the publishers and higher ups that end up being the root cause of your issues.

Still it wouldn't take ten seconds to add a sentence specifying that, my only conclusion must be that the designers and editors don't play the game.

It's not that simple. That's what you don't seem to be getting. You want fast answers email them a rule question and post the clarification yourself on here.

You're also factually incorrect. The designers do play, I played DH2 with Tim Huckelbery myself when it was still in the original Beta phase.

You seem to be just assuming they don't care about the game, but you aren't understanding that it's not all in their power to fix this stuff. It's very very similar to the videogame industry in that way. You're blaming designers and developers when it's the publishers and higher ups that end up being the root cause of your issues.

I'm "blaming" whoever writes the thing in the final PDF, every member of a company is accountable for their products in most situations. Products aren't made by a single person, I find it hard to believe the nameless publishers thought that they should change the wording on it. I don't really care whose fault it is it shouldn't be there.

Also I haven't played DH2 so I couldn't comment, not that I would consider playtesting the same as playing a game.

not that I would consider playtesting the same as playing a game.

...What?

not that I would consider playtesting the same as playing a game.

...What?

Yea, I'll second that...

What!?

First off, sorry RMcD, I was in a good place, and felt like praising the game.

Second, and not to put words in his mouth, he might mean "play-testing" CAN mean having to try everything, even things you might not normally want to try, and/or LOOKING for things to break/that break, as opposed to actually "playing" the game, where you assume most of the bugs have been worked out (by the people you paid to get the book from), and you are free to try your hand at what interests you. In SW, for instance, there are whole varieties of characters I'd never play, or only very unlikely; their style of "Jedi", in this most recent iteration, is the only thing "freeing me up" to try more stuff, since Force-user is more tacked on, later. I also might not want to have to make a pilot, and a Jedi,to test space battles, and land battles, or limit the one character, and make them do both. I might have a hard time, myself, playing the game, and also having to keep an eye on every minutiae, looking for slip-ups, and what not, or finding out that something I liked went bye-bye, even though I liked it. Example, in Edge of the Empire beta, the lightsabers still had Defensive, and Deflect; they could do all the things lightsabers do. Later, they tossed those, in favor of limiting people to need Force ability to do that, yet again, even though other weapons kept some of that, while the system never supported that degree of Force ability.

Again, I'm not certain if this was the direction RMcD was going, but while I'd certainly need to "play" the game, to play-test it, I'd personally find it certainly a different experience than just playing what I want, with rules I assume already work, that will remain consistent, from that point on. Otherwise, he'll have to let us know if I was close, at all.

I'm pretty rustled up here venkelos so I'll take it that you mean no ill will, but I think if RMcD wants to make such assertions they can defend such assertions on their own.

Frankly I'm at the point ErrantKnight seemed to be at, my line is actively insulting designers, and RMcD crossed it.

not that I would consider playtesting the same as playing a game.

...What?

Playing a game for pleasure and playtesting a game for mechanics are two completely separate endeavours. By playing a game, I clearly didn't convey this well enough I was not talking about doing so as part of your job but as something you do as a hobby.

Venkelos covers this point quite well. Playtesting a game is about stressing mechanics and finding coherence and function and the mindset you use while playtesting, or even reviewing or q&aing video games to keep that analogy going is not what I was referring to when I said playing the game.

Regardless if you're getting pretty rustled by me saying the designers didn't play the game, which isn't even an insult ?, you would probably be best off stepping away for your wellbeing I don't see what you have to gain from this conversation.

Also no worries venkelos I'm very happy with your contributions to the thread just trying to avoid derailment.

In regards to resolving these issues I've came up with these design decisions:

Advance tables should be sorted first by:

Skill/Talent/Trait, secondly by Cost, and thirdly by Advance (and then lastly by prerequisite).

I can see the argument in favour of sorting by cost first but I think the distinctness of the groups deserves the sorting by that first, and I also see the argument in grouping things like Intimidate and Intimidate +10 together however I think it's fairly rare for them to come up and I have another solution in mind for that kind of thing. Advances would never be duplicated (ala x2, x3) though I get why they did that for a print copy, ie each advance would get its own row.

In regards to presentation in the origin story, at all times the order of characteristics on character sheet should come first. So WS is always first, then BS, etc. This means readers know instantly what to expect and if they're looking for something like say Fellowship they know always to look at the end. The downside is you don't get the instant response from magnitude to change.

I was also thinking how I would lay out my reference book for designing this game, and I think that it makes sense to have an X axis of every characteristic, wound, fate, corruption, insanity, all skills, all talents, all traits and the Y characteristic being a list of all the sources. This method you would toggle on applicable rows and the final row would summarised. This would involve turning most of the flavour traits into actual traits, which they should be since they make you roll willpower saves and stuff. This reference table could be given pop outs on each row (ie click on it) which would show a flavour box, meaning that consumers would be free to present data as desired (though still make a finished PDF version). Immediate flaws I see with this method are that it is really unwieldy (there are hundreds of skins and talents that will only ever have one source) and each "or" option would require a separate row either just the choice rows, (so the Forge World any characteristic would have 8 rows called "Forge World Any Characteristic Choice - Strength), or each possibility completed on one line (which may end up with dozens of rows for a specially choice heavy source).

With that in mind, and for some other reasons I think the design to include +10/+20 skills isn't a good one, and I would take the concept from page 15 (Core Rulebook) and hold it true throughout (except I would exclude Sound Constitution so you can't buy a Sound Constitution and trade it in for Talented). I would then get rid of the rule that says you cannot buy things from your class at rank 1 that you got from character creation which needlessly punished sensible character creation (ie Forge World Explorator duplicates abilities for no gain).

Regarding receiving a rule as a Trained Basic Skill which has no difference from getting is a Trained Advanced Skill I would change the skill system so that skills have 5 status: Unknown (cannot roll), Known (-20 (like DH2) or half), Trained (0), Experienced (+10), Veteran (+20).

Then all you have to do is give every starting character the skills you want them to have as basic, I don't get why they didn't do that in the first place since the Basic and Advanced nomenclature seems like a massive waste of effort and something they were really inconsistent about through the books.

Note I struggle about naming schemes and what to use because at the same time as this is aimed at fixing Rogue Traders design I am aware that merging them into a single system is also an end goal as such aligning the system with DH2 in making Basic skills -20 rather than half would make sense.

RMcD, your thread was not hijacked. Your OP consisted of a critique of FFGs 40K RT. You've seen agreement and disagreement with your observations. You've seen defense of FFG. All of it is in line with your OP. Just because it isn't what you wanted to hear doesn't mean it's off-topic.

RMcD, your thread was not hijacked. Your OP consisted of a critique of FFGs 40K RT. You've seen agreement and disagreement with your observations. You've seen defense of FFG. All of it is in line with your OP. Just because it isn't what you wanted to hear doesn't mean it's off-topic.

Actually when I say "this is inconsistent" and someone says "it is good because it is a good representation of the universe" that is a hijack. I never brought up the quality of the 40k lines overall, and indeed had no intention of bringing up (and I don't think I've ever commented on the overall quality), I was specifically discussing the inconsistency in the design of the books and bringing up that you don't care for Black Crusade games is a total hijack, and it is completely off topic.

Black Crusade has nothing to do with design inconsistency, nor does capturing the spirit of 40k, unless the spirit of 40k demands a presence of inconsistency (which I guess you could make an argument for, but you didn't, so it was off topic).

Thanking them for putting together a playable set of rules also has absolutely jack **** to do with inconsistency. Not once in your entire comment did you even come close to discussing anything of actual substance relating to the topic.

It bothers me particularly that you think that you weren't off topic because it was you who derailed the thread and forced me to make a comment I wouldn't have thought I would need to on a civilised forum.

I would appreciate it if you either left the thread completely or took some lessons on what it means to be on topic.

Heh. The spirit is coming out, even if the name has changed.

Actually when I say "this is inconsistent" and someone says "it is good because it is a good representation of the universe" that is a hijack.

No, it's a disagreement with your analysis, along with a figurative exemplification.

I was specifically discussing the inconsistency in the design of the books and bringing up that you don't care for Black Crusade games is a total hijack, and it is completely off topic.

Mentioning Black Crusade was a mere digression, not a change of topics. It was Herodotus who told us that any discussion of the past requires digression.

And even this isn't a hijacking of your thread, even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP, since it is a reply to your own posting above. These forums are open for discussions, and the posters are required only to follow the ToS.

It bothers me particularly that you think that you weren't off topic because it was you who derailed the thread and forced me to make a comment I wouldn't have thought I would need to on a civilised forum.

Is " absolutely jack **** to do with inconsistency " your idea of civilized? Perhaps we were both born and raised at different times.

So thank you for the invitation to leave, but I'll decline and wish you a bright and happy and very civilized day.

Heh. The spirit is coming out, even if the name has changed.

Actually when I say "this is inconsistent" and someone says "it is good because it is a good representation of the universe" that is a hijack.

No, it's a disagreement with your analysis, along with a figurative exemplification.

I was specifically discussing the inconsistency in the design of the books and bringing up that you don't care for Black Crusade games is a total hijack, and it is completely off topic.

Mentioning Black Crusade was a mere digression, not a change of topics. It was Herodotus who told us that any discussion of the past requires digression.

And even this isn't a hijacking of your thread, even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP, since it is a reply to your own posting above. These forums are open for discussions, and the posters are required only to follow the ToS.

It bothers me particularly that you think that you weren't off topic because it was you who derailed the thread and forced me to make a comment I wouldn't have thought I would need to on a civilised forum.

Is " absolutely jack **** to do with inconsistency " your idea of civilized? Perhaps we were both born and raised at different times.

So thank you for the invitation to leave, but I'll decline and wish you a bright and happy and very civilized day.

No, saying something is good isn't a comment on its consistency. That's not talking about it's analysis at all. I don't know how to make it clearer. If I say something is red, and then you say "well it's really big" that has nothing to do with the colour. As I said you could make the case that "it is inconsistent, but that's good" which is at least related but you did not make such a case. You didn't say they should deliberately have false or conflicting information in the books to represent the bureaucracy of the Adminstratum.

The definition of a digression is not being the main topic so as much as you attempt to wiggle out there you're basically saying "I was off topic" and yet somehow maintaining that you weren't.

I didn't mention Black Crusade at all so I don't see how it's a follow on, regardless if I go off topic I am equally as wrong for doing so and it is not justification for following.

Me being civilised and this being a civilised forum are two separate things, not to mention my whole point was the belief of this being a civilised forum were clearly wrong since there are users here who continue to post in threads about nothing at all relating to the topic and continue to do so even after being asked to leave.

I like cake.

Me being civilised and this being a civilised forum are two separate things, not to mention my whole point was the belief of this being a civilised forum were clearly wrong since there are users here who continue to post in threads about nothing at all relating to the topic and continue to do so even after being asked to leave.

Are you just actively trying to embitter people at this point?

I like cake.

Take your like you silly fool.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You're not about to get into one of those rants that gets you banned from another forum, are you?

"No, saying something is good isn't a comment on its consistency."

I think most people would consider "it's good" a rebuttal of "it's inconsistent." Your mileage may vary.

"The definition of a digression is not being the main topic so as much as you attempt to wiggle out there you're basically saying "I was off topic" and yet somehow maintaining that you weren't."

" A temporary departure from the main subject in speech or writing."

-Oxford Dictionary.

The Merriam-Webster wasn't much help but I'll throw it in for good measure.

" the act or an instance of digressing in a discourse or other usually organized literary work"

"I didn't mention Black Crusade at all so I don't see how it's a follow on, regardless if I go off topic I am equally as wrong for doing so and it is not justification for following."

That's a digression used for contrast.

Okay, okay, you want a concrete example. Let me give you one that you thought we could all agree on. If you've EVER been in a room of professionals you would know that something they can all agree on is as rare as hen's teeth. Even global warming has ts detractors.

Look at Lineages:

My Great Grandfather Built This Colony - +1 PF, Peer (Any)

Born to Wealth - +2 PF

Far-Reaching Contacts - Peer (Any) x3

These are worded in a similar way flavour wise, it's not like one carries with it a heavy burden or a sordid past. Now if I was to ask you the cost order I'm sure you could debate whether or not Born to Wealth or Far-Reaching Contacts would be the highest costed, but I don't think anyone would say the first one is the highest costed. In reality the 1st one is 350xp, the 2nd and 3rd are 300xp. What? The 1st one is half of Born to Wealth, and less than half of Far-Reaching Contacts. There is no synergy between the benefits that would suggest it should be marked up.

You've assumed an arithmetic formula. If that were the case the easiest to determine is Far-Reaching Contacts since there is only 1 variable. Obviously, a Peer advantage is worth 100 XP in that case. That means the PF in the first case costs 250 XP. That means the 2nd PF in the 2nd case costs only 50 XP and that seems incongruent to you, as the second PF is so obviously worth the same as the first. In that case I'd agree. However, I don't think that each Peer talent is worth an equal amount. It's not that difficult to rack up several Peer talents in the Origin Path. Past a few obvious ones, the later choices probably won't get much play time in a campaign, and probably shouldn't cost as much. Perhaps these aren't compiled arithmetically, but with an algorithm. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that each PF in the second example costs 150 XP each. That means the Peer talent in the first example costs 200 XP. How can that fit with the 3rd example? Well, the first Peer talent costs 200 XP but the next one only costs 50 or 75, while the 3rd would then cost 50 or 25. Now it makes perfect sense. Do I agree with that? No. Would I waste my intellectual energy overanalyzing it? No. If a player brought it to my attention I'd agree that there was a discrepancy and recommend they spend their XP as wisely as they might seem fit to do. If you want to rewrite the book that's your business.

"even after being asked to leave."

This is a public forum. If we'd both purchased a ticket to a ball game and found ourselves sitting next to each other, would you ask me to leave? Would you expect me to comply? I paid for my ticket, same as you did, only this time I paid more. My ticket in this instance has cost me 1,266 posts. Yours has cost you 43. What gives you the right to ask me to leave? I haven't violated any public or social contract. Why should I leave? In fact, I'll offer to buy your ticket and you can leave. I'll go delete 43 of my posts and you can leave and never come back. Does that sound fair?

Disclaimer this will be my last response to non-on-topic portions of your comments.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You're not about to get into one of those rants that gets you banned from another forum, are you?

"No, saying something is good isn't a comment on its consistency."

I think most people would consider "it's good" a rebuttal of "it's inconsistent." Your mileage may vary.

"The definition of a digression is not being the main topic so as much as you attempt to wiggle out there you're basically saying "I was off topic" and yet somehow maintaining that you weren't."

" A temporary departure from the main subject in speech or writing."

-Oxford Dictionary.

The Merriam-Webster wasn't much help but I'll throw it in for good measure.

" the act or an instance of digressing in a discourse or other usually organized literary work"

"I didn't mention Black Crusade at all so I don't see how it's a follow on, regardless if I go off topic I am equally as wrong for doing so and it is not justification for following."

That's a digression used for contrast.

Okay, okay, you want a concrete example. Let me give you one that you thought we could all agree on. If you've EVER been in a room of professionals you would know that something they can all agree on is as rare as hen's teeth. Even global warming has ts detractors.

Look at Lineages:

My Great Grandfather Built This Colony - +1 PF, Peer (Any)

Born to Wealth - +2 PF

Far-Reaching Contacts - Peer (Any) x3

These are worded in a similar way flavour wise, it's not like one carries with it a heavy burden or a sordid past. Now if I was to ask you the cost order I'm sure you could debate whether or not Born to Wealth or Far-Reaching Contacts would be the highest costed, but I don't think anyone would say the first one is the highest costed. In reality the 1st one is 350xp, the 2nd and 3rd are 300xp. What? The 1st one is half of Born to Wealth, and less than half of Far-Reaching Contacts. There is no synergy between the benefits that would suggest it should be marked up.

You've assumed an arithmetic formula. If that were the case the easiest to determine is Far-Reaching Contacts since there is only 1 variable. Obviously, a Peer advantage is worth 100 XP in that case. That means the PF in the first case costs 250 XP. That means the 2nd PF in the 2nd case costs only 50 XP and that seems incongruent to you, as the second PF is so obviously worth the same as the first. In that case I'd agree. However, I don't think that each Peer talent is worth an equal amount. It's not that difficult to rack up several Peer talents in the Origin Path. Past a few obvious ones, the later choices probably won't get much play time in a campaign, and probably shouldn't cost as much. Perhaps these aren't compiled arithmetically, but with an algorithm. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that each PF in the second example costs 150 XP each. That means the Peer talent in the first example costs 200 XP. How can that fit with the 3rd example? Well, the first Peer talent costs 200 XP but the next one only costs 50 or 75, while the 3rd would then cost 50 or 25. Now it makes perfect sense. Do I agree with that? No. Would I waste my intellectual energy overanalyzing it? No. If a player brought it to my attention I'd agree that there was a discrepancy and recommend they spend their XP as wisely as they might seem fit to do. If you want to rewrite the book that's your business.

"even after being asked to leave."

This is a public forum. If we'd both purchased a ticket to a ball game and found ourselves sitting next to each other, would you ask me to leave? Would you expect me to comply? I paid for my ticket, same as you did, only this time I paid more. My ticket in this instance has cost me 1,266 posts. Yours has cost you 43. What gives you the right to ask me to leave? I haven't violated any public or social contract. Why should I leave? In fact, I'll offer to buy your ticket and you can leave. I'll go delete 43 of my posts and you can leave and never come back. Does that sound fair?

I have yet to ever be banned from a forum.

That is completely wrong. Consistency and quality are hopefully correlated but something can be good quality and inconsistent. Hence it is not anywhere close to a rebuttal, I never made a statement on the quality of the work, telling me something I already think is good is good is completely worthless.

This departure has been in 100% of your posts, that is not temporary, regardless even temporary departure is still a departure. What you quote is basically saying you were off topic.

"You've assumed an arithmetic formula. If that were the case the easiest to determine is Far-Reaching Contacts since there is only 1 variable. Obviously, a Peer advantage is worth 100 XP in that case. That means the PF in the first case costs 250 XP. That means the 2nd PF in the 2nd case costs only 50 XP and that seems incongruent to you, as the second PF is so obviously worth the same as the first. In that case I'd agree. However, I don't think that each Peer talent is worth an equal amount. It's not that difficult to rack up several Peer talents in the Origin Path. Past a few obvious ones, the later choices probably won't get much play time in a campaign, and probably shouldn't cost as much. Perhaps these aren't compiled arithmetically, but with an algorithm. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that each PF in the second example costs 150 XP each. That means the Peer talent in the first example costs 200 XP. How can that fit with the 3rd example? Well, the first Peer talent costs 200 XP but the next one only costs 50 or 75, while the 3rd would then cost 50 or 25. Now it makes perfect sense. Do I agree with that? No. Would I waste my intellectual energy overanalyzing it? No. If a player brought it to my attention I'd agree that there was a discrepancy and recommend they spend their XP as wisely as they might seem fit to do. If you want to rewrite the book that's your business."

At long last on topic that's all I ever wanted. That's a good point, I did assume a simple formula. If I hadn't read the text I would make the assumption that, if it was going to be anything it would be an exponential formula, the more specialised is usually the stronger. As you rightly say it makes not much sense with regards to Profit Factor, after all, Profit Factor gets linearly better in terms of rolls and exponentially better when you consider that the harder to get stuff is of more value (so the marginal benefit of getting access to unique instead of rare is quite high). However you're right that Peer (X) may be logarithmic instead, in a campaign one group of people is likely to be more dominant and if you can get that from just a single Peer Talent then a decreasing marginal benefit seems reasonable to assume.

Yes it is my business but since I think that other peoples input is valuable then I am making my rewriting public so as to gain from such insightful knowledge as thinking of decreasing or increasing costs.

If we assume that the formulas are (Number of Peer)^X + (Number of PF)^Y = XP then Xlog(3) = log(200), Ylog(2) = log(300) and Xlog(1) + Ylog(1) = log(350), which doesn't solve. And of course 3X = 300, 3Y = 300, and X+Y=350 doesn't solve either, so I wonder if it many be not be a formula but rather a manual evaluation.

Your final comment is because on the many forums I've ventured to the social contract is that the person who creates the thread is adhered to within the thread, after all if anyone wants to something that thread poster doesn't want they can always just make another thread. I've been on plenty of forums where non-OP users attempt to stop other users from veering away from the purpose of the thread creator and this is the first time I've ever been on a forum where the thread creator does not set the topic. I'm not sure why you think post counts are of value but I guess since this forum tracks them perhaps it is some measure of currency as you seem to think. Your analogy is totally off, it's more like if you hosted a party that was open to all and then I walked into your party, began disrupting it, and then you asked me to leave and I said hah it's open for all suck it up.

"Disclaimer this will be my last response to non-on-topic portions of your comments."

That sounds a lot like, "I insist on having the last word."

So I started to write up all of the talents from all of the systems into an excel sheet, and I was doing Rogue Trader's and I found just some fascinating stuff in the prerequisites.

Almost all prerequisites when they have a characteristic requirement just state the needed number (so BS 40 means 40+) but in Warp Sense it says Per 30+.

Almost all mentions of skills or talents as a prerequisite simply state the name so Assassin Strike has Acrobatic for example, but really oddly Hotshot Pilot and Warp Sense both add skill to their skill prerequisite (so Pilot skill rather than Pilot). When prerequisites have a group talent some just say the talent name and others say talent name (any).

I also never before realised how much of the talent table is devoted solely to Explorators, I wonder why they didn't make it a chapter ala the Astropath's chapter (psychic powers) and the Navigator's chapter (Navigator).

Also it's kind of amusing how the summaries between the skills are different, for example Enemy/Peer/Hatred/Good Reputation, some of the summaries just say +10, some describe it without telling the mechanics in the summary. I haven't yet started on the other books (since I play RT 3x as much as anything else) but I imagine only DH 2e will be free of this kind of stuff. DH1e will be great I bet

The talent table and the list of talents in the talent chapter doesn't even match up. On the table Infused Knowledge is after Independent Targeting but in hte actual chapter it's before Improved Warp Sense. Similar to Into the Jaws of Hell.

Edit 2: In TSR Touched by the Bloody Hand is a trait on page 132 but a talent on page 128.

For much of the bestiary I don't get why they made some things talents and some things traits, there seems to be no coherence to it. Talents are meant to be player buyable so surely they should all be traits right.

Given that they had a Psychic-focused, a Xenos-focused, and a Missionary-focused book, they probably would've done an Explorator book if the line hadn't shut down. They do also have The Lathe Worlds, which is fairly transferable into Rogue Trader.

I don't think there really are any Forge Worlds, out in the Expanse, so they'd just have to reference back to the Lathes, anyway, and that's another line's thing, sort of. Besides, with the plethora of techno-gizmo options, splattered about, and the fact that the Tech-Priests don't usually get their own chapter, in a book, like Psychic Powers, Navigator stuff, or the very rules-wonky Faith tricks, it didn't seem they needed one. Mention a weird group, occasionally, and snag all the cybernetics you can; you're an Explorator!

Given that they had a Psychic-focused, a Xenos-focused, and a Missionary-focused book, they probably would've done an Explorator book if the line hadn't shut down. They do also have The Lathe Worlds, which is fairly transferable into Rogue Trader.

True but they did have a lot of time after the last RT book it came out in 2013 right? I think after DH2 they were probably intending to make a RT2.

I don't think there really are any Forge Worlds, out in the Expanse, so they'd just have to reference back to the Lathes, anyway, and that's another line's thing, sort of. Besides, with the plethora of techno-gizmo options, splattered about, and the fact that the Tech-Priests don't usually get their own chapter, in a book, like Psychic Powers, Navigator stuff, or the very rules-wonky Faith tricks, it didn't seem they needed one. Mention a weird group, occasionally, and snag all the cybernetics you can; you're an Explorator!

It's a good point, they assume you'll be in the Koronus Expanse which is fair enough however I feel like they could have done with a few pages on the Ad Mechanicum and Dark Mechancius especially for those who don't know much about the lore, there's not a lot about machine spirits and the such for example.

Here is my list of talents, don't have access to some of the books:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g6036wj9lwqi3qr/Warhammer%2040k%20Talent%20Index.xlsx?dl=0

Edit: http://i.imgur.com/6oZCrDZ.png

Well I was wrong about DH2.

It brings me nicely onto a question, when things have to be listed would you prefer Alphabetical; Characteristic(Alphabetical)/Characteristic(Order)->Skill(Rank->Alphabetical)/Skill(Alphabetical->Rank)->Talent(Tier/Alphabetical)->Trait; or something else?

Now in my opinion the best method would be

Characteristics (in order, ie WS>BS>S>etc), then Skills (alphabetically), then talents (alphabetically), and then traits (alphabetically (is there any other order))?

But I'm happy to consider other alternatives. When presented by a choice you'd take the one closest to the top and present them like Choice X/Choice Y, so WS 30/BS 30. Though my first preference would simply be listing the talent separately, one for one set of requirements, one for another. With skills I think it should be written Skill -20, Skill +0, Skill +10, Skill +20. With char requirements shortening it to WS/BS/Int seems fine, and since there is nothing that requires a specific Char (like you must have only 30 no higher or lower) there's no need for +. It's reasonable they may need a - for something.

So are you going to do the other lines?

Good work so far

Yes I intend to, I will finish off DH2 and RT first because those are the ones I'm playing.

The first goal is to turn every system from a bunch of PDFs into an Excel Spreadsheet and then once that's there it's easy for everyone and anyone to homebrew as they see fit. And I do already have a number of ideas of how to do a single system.

Okay

I will watch with interest

Glad to hear, do you have a particular system you want written up after DH2 or RT or anything like that? I don't really have a preference, would probably do Only War.