There are a few things I would like changed if there was a DH v 2.0.

First: Righteous fury. It is just way too easy to kill off the big bad with 1 hit. I like the OW mechanism.

Weapon dmages. Some weapons, (e.g. plasma pistols), feel very underpowered.

More experienced starting characters. Current, level 1 starting characters are very weak. Especially when it comes to knowledge skills. I would have the new start at the equivelenet of level 3.

Economics: This is a major headache for me. (a) Players have different incomes, (b) the cost vs. salary scale is really off, © some items shuld not be on the common market, and should only be rare/very rare if you have a connection to a relevant instiution, (d) some rare/very rare items are very cheap, especially when you consider that they are in very short supply.

As an exampe for (b), a guardsman starting salary is 50 thrones, whereas a mid grade meal costs 5 thrones. He could only eat for 10 days!, never mind transport and hotels. He would not even be able to afford a common quality doctor (75 thrones).

To be honest I'm not sure what I would change if I wouldm make a second edition. One thing that I know however is that I would probably update the rules to BC and OW and probably introduce a new rule to when wounded; all hits in the head does double damage after AP for any helmet or cover has been removed. I introduce that into my game and suddenly it became alot deadlier, and in my mind more realistic, as hits to the head means bad business for the reciving part. Just like in real life.

Otherwise I would probably focus more on the supplements that could be make for the game. Ideas for them could be the following.

Ordo books

Ordo Xenos-including a xenos generator

Ordo Hereticus-including a cult generator

Ordo Malleus-including a daemon generator

Handbooks

Radical's Handbook

Puritan's Handbook

Classbooks , like Lathes World was a kind of classbook for the Tech-priests, Book of Judgment for the Arbitares etc.

Scum and the Calixis underworld

Arbitares and the Calixis law enforcement

Adepts - and the Calixis administration and rule

Psykers - and such stuff

Guardsmen - lots of stuff about war and violence in the Calixis Sector

Tech-priests and the Adeptus Mechanicus

Assassins and the death cults and murder guilds

Clerics and the Ecclesiarchy

Others

World of the Calixis Sector

Monster book (1-3)

Lots of other stuff…

Radwraith said:

What about "Pure faith"?

Sebashaw said:

As an Acolyte, you can theoretically kill random people on fabricated grounds as well. In terms of gameplay style, what's the difference between one life and a billion when it comes to wanton murder?

Plus, look at Ascension - all that the designers ultimately did was "delaying" people's experience in actually getting to play the Inquisition as they might have imagined when hearing about the game first. Or was I really alone with these expectations?

Sebashaw said:

But iis it confirmed a second edition of DH?

Or is it just a rumor?

Sebashaw said:

As far as I can tell its just speculation by the fans.

If there was to be a second, or revised, edition of DH I would like to see….

1. The psychic disciplines revised to fit in with the wh40k rpg line RT, DH, etc.).
2. The refinements made to combat implemented in BC/OW.
3. Not to mention the handling of unnatural abilities and tech priest talents which were changed to implants.

I think thats it, though i may have missed other facets which were refined through the line.

Rictus said:

They shoul make unnatural talents require at least a rating of 60-70 in said characteristic. The problem is that a d100 system has to fail the more character progress you allow. At some point you have a strenght characteristic of 80. To add 20 to that gives you an auto sucess. There is no way to keep a d100 line alive without capping potential or accepting that is HAS TO break.

Well, they kind of did cap potential with characters only being allowed to increase characteristicy by a set number of +5 steps. And what's wrong with auto success for menial tasks? More heroic characters will also face more heroic challenges of increasing difficulty, which in turn pushes down their chance of success to a level where the outcome once more may not be quite as certain.

Not that I think that any character should ever get a characteristic of 80, mind you. 51+ is already "Heroic" if you go by the benchmark in the original Dark Heresy rulebook, giving a Daemon's Willpower as example. Why should it be necessary to go to such heights - especially when you have to "cheat" in that the character isn't quite as powerful after all? It just feels like a redundant power up whose main impact on the game is that it clutters up an otherwise sound mechanic.

Well, the four +5 raises may look like a cap but for some careers it is not, even more if you later on allow ascention. Especialy for Tech-Priests there are lots of ways to go around this.

Also unnatural characteristics are not only multiplying your characteristic bonus, they mulitpy your degrees of sucess on an opposed roll. And with the Inquisitors Handbook they make every test one step easier, resulting in a +10% chance. In the end Unnatural Characteristics make you much better.

And the example sheet you are refering to… that thing is bad… just horrible bad.

Unnatural Characteristis are a decen way to give a huge bonus without making every test "menial". You do not even test for the most "menial" tests in this game. You test for tasks there is a chance of failure even for a professional though he may reduce the chances to fail. But an unmodiefied test aka challenging should not be an auto sucess…

I know that Unnaturals are not only multiplying the bonus, but all the other stuff is just as senseless. As I said, either you are that good - at which point you also ought to be better at succeeding the test itself - or you are not. I just cannot wrap my mind around the supposed logic behind this talent improving the effects of a success, yet having zero influence on the test itself. And it should be obvious that this lack of influence stems solely from the designer's (valid) concern that it would break the challenge.

Also, why should the example sheet be bad? It obviously got thrown overboard with later supplements, but at its time it was a handy and crystal-clear overview on which sort of characteristic would represent what.

FieserMoep said:

Why not?

Characters progress and get better at what they do. To me, it is logical that the challenges they are presented with change accordingly. A character that starts with a characteristic of, say, 30 will treat a "Challenging" (+0) test differently than he would with a characteristic of 50 many levels later. In essence, to this character, the "Challenging" (+0) test has now become a "Routine" (+20) test, because his aptitude at solving such challenges has improved by +20 through character progression.

That crate you just lifted won't magically increase its weight to be just as heavy to lift in a couple years when your character gained more Strength.

And just like that, tests can become menial. If this is not intended, then the rules should simply not intend to let characters progress that far. I would not see a problem with that, either, as long as the rules do follow one of the two paths instead of attempting to patch the obvious issue with redundant talents that, let's be real, just do not make a lot of sense when you examine their effects:

The Space Marine is so strong, if he manages to lift that metal bar he will gain so many Degrees of Success that he can do so with his little finger! But of course all that Unnatural Strength apparently does nothing to actually help with the test because he "needs" to have a viable chance at failing everything?

… oh well, it's just one of the small things that always bothered me, I guess.

Lynata said:

Normal Bounty Hunters are just as Agile as Orks are Strong? A Race that defines itself with its strenght? A Cult Fanatic is 6 points away from the Willpower of a Daemon? Even a PC can start with a Characteristic on 45 as long as he rolls lucky and is one raise away from beeing heroic… on level 1.

Lynata said:

The Space Marine is so strong, if he manages to lift that metal bar he will gain so many Degrees of Success that he can do so with his little finger! But of course all that Unnatural Strength apparently does nothing to actually help with the test because he "needs" to have a viable chance at failing everything?

Does Deathwatch not have the Rule that every multiplyer of an Unnatural Characteristic makes a test on said characteristic one step easier just like dark heresy does with the Inquisitors Handbook?

Also please take another example, not a crate or anything with weight for exactly these test benefit the most from unnatural strenght for you may not even have to test for your carry/lift/push for you automaticaly suceed for weights as seen on the table, you need only to test if you want to push this limit further. For example someone with TB 8 and SB 8 because of an unnatural characteristic can lift a crate 1.350kg heavy without the need to test. Without he could only lift 112 kg. I would say pretty good.

And for other tests. As a GM I define a test as challenging +-0 no matter what character may try to suceed on it. So yes, for a character that has progressed his four advancements this test has become two steps easier though it is still challenging. He is someone realy good, indeed he is. But now this guy started with 35 on this characteristic, +20 and we have 55. Additionaly +20 from Skill mastery, +10 from some tool (there are tons of) +10 from an unnatural characteristic. He will test now on a 95 an it would not be dificult to push this even more for alot of tests. So something challenging is so easy, e does not even have to test for… unless he needs some degrees of sucess.

A d100 system will break, sooner or later. Well, it will at last if the company tries to sell further rulebooks that have to include more character progress to be interisting for the target audience. We could play with the dark heresy core book, everything would be limited, fine, but it could become booring very soon and wont generate profit for FFG.

So as I posted this with a question, there is still no answer. No actual writer, developer or insider has said what "may" be in the works… which is the same answer given at GenCon last year after Lathes was released. (Even if an announcement was made now, it would me no new product in at least a year.) There is nothing in the Upcoming, even under the In Development heading. It will be interesting to see if anything is announced in August this year.

FieserMoep said:

I don't really see a problem with any of this. The standard Ork in DH's "Creatures Anathema" supplement has a Strength rating of 46, and Fanatics are called fanatic for a reason. Also, that lucky 45 would apply only to a single characteristic dependent on one's homeworld. If his people are generally renowned for said characteristic (such as Catachans for their Strength), why should the player not be "close to heroic"? And are player characters in RPGs not heroes by default, anyways?

FieserMoep said:

You are quite correct! Still, obviously this is not an accurate representation of the character's capabilities when they are counted as twice their number elsewhere. It just doesn't … "feel right" if it needs special rules that segregate one characteristic from the others instead of just giving them a +X.

FieserMoep said:

So … you're agreeing with me?

FieserMoep said:

Okay, there we are in agreement. I've certainly noticed the "power creep", too. Although I still believe that it wasn't necessary to prevent boredom. It's not like there were no other forms of character progress available, no?
To me it just feels as if they didn't really plan everything out from the start as perhaps they should have. Or maybe they did, but it has gotten lost when the license was transferred from Black Industries to FFG. Whatever the reason, I would hope that this gets adressed in a "2.0" version of the game - yet at the same time I know I shouldn't expect it, which makes me feel sort of indifferent about the whole thing. Too many divergent expectations, I guess.

Well, power creep is roughly never intentional, as last if it tends to harm a gameline. There are supplements that are not creeping on theirself but in the end the line is the sum of all its parts and there we have a conglomerate of synergies someone might not have forseen. But the damage is done.

The problem with a 2nd Version is that FFG has to make a descition: Start it vom Scrap or recycle the old supplements too.

A new beginning would allow aa new system, maybe even not d100 though I am a huge fan of the percentile die. But this solution would doom and end the line, the old supplements wont generate any profit or might not even amortise themself, I doubt FFG would do this. The other approach is to release a new core rulebook with updated rules that tend to be like BC/OW and to release a shittasticly huge Errata/FAQ/Appendix for the other supplements. And this is a monumental task I doubt the few authors are capable off.

This is the same experience I had in some of my jobs: Sometimes it is better so work with a damaged system you know the errors off that no start something anew.

But ATM with out highranking group we somehow reached a pretty bad level off power creep, even unintentional to some degree. But every fight is either narrativ because some enmies will never be able to even harm us or it is Unreal Tournament Insta-Gib Arena where everyone is onehittich each other.

Hmmh, all of that sounds rather sensible, unfortunately.

Other game systems were able to "get away" with releasing supplements anew (hah, we only need to look as far as the "parental franchise"), but it could easily be argued that FFG's 40k RPGs are not big enough to warrant this risk. Part of the reluctance by side of the playerbase might also come from expecting to have to buy the same rather high amount of books; it might be less of a problem if we'd be talking "only" two or three supplements per game line …

This may sound very negative now, but perhaps that's why we will never see a version 2.0 - or at least not within the next ten years or so. Regardless of which direction they'd take, the designers would essentially be trapped between the two hard places of "not different enough" and "too different", with the playerbase being split itself, thus lowering the amount of potential customers even further.

I'm not optimistic for a second edition of DH or a consolidation of the 40K RPG game lines. I don't have any special insight other than the D6 generation podcast (#122) where Tim Huckelbery and Sam Stewart (from FFG) spoke about the upcoming Star Wars RPG and implied that they (FFG) like the way they've handled the releases of the 40K games and plan to do the same with SW.

Ugh. I give up…

I'm a fan of the games but purely as a reader of the material. I haven't had the opportunity to play in a long time. Just as well I suppose. The more I read the games (I own over 90% of the 40K material FFG has published) and the more I read about the games here and on other message boards the less appealing it becomes in large part because of the occasional janky or unbalanced rule but mostly because of the incompatibility of it all.

I'll stick with the novels for now if for no other reason than that is all I have time for. That said, can someone wake me up when a second edition is anounced? No. Published? I can't stand all the waiting. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

PS: by contrast GW released WH40K 5th edition in 2008. 6th edition was released last year. You know what else was released in 2008? Dark Heresy.

PPS: Craig Gallant (from the D6 Generation Podcast) mumbled something on the latest episode about a "super secret project" that he's working on for, I think, FFG, though it could be for one of the other game companies he's been writing for.

But that's just me talking nonsense.