This might not be the right place or the right time to post this but here we go. This is what I'd want, and I'm not paying 20 bucks to see what's in there.

Rogue trader style character creation, preferably fleshed out (think burning wheel)

Un-combined skills: Stealth was better when it was 2 skills, search was better when it was not just awareness

Mechanics brought back closer to old dark heresy ie more cthulhu in space, less Eisonhorn's awesome possey(wounds being more serious and doing stuff before criticals is good, playing as an inquisitor is bad).

Combat rules being fixed, ie balance full auto and accurate, while still leaving room for using non accurate and semi auto weapons without gimping oneself (the ability to supress with semi auto was a good addition in OW)

Slightly more flexible character advancement, but not the sprawling mess that was Black Crusade. Some combination of original DH and OW would be my preference.

Throne geld remaining in the game. I like buying stuff and figuring out how to spend limited resources.

Psykers using DH system. The variable strength of using lots of d10s is much better than pushing/fettering and what not.

Looking at the char sheet, it seems mutations have been removed. This is horrible

Dems my opinions.

Without spoiling too much, so far it's the exact opposite of what you want. Less skills, higher starting character competence, no money to count - that's what I've gotten so far.

Which, IMHO, is great, because what you want is the current DH with a few tweaks to character creation - you pretty much have that already, so why wish for more of the same?

What I'd like to see would be a bigger presence of the Inquisitor himself within the rules - the fact that he was not much more than D&D's 'mysterious stranger in a tavern' was one of the glaring omissions in DH1.

I'm not so much talking about Inquisitors as player characters (even though that has already been announced) but rather as a sort of "bracket" for the party - similar to the way a RT party constructs their space ship. Even when he's not actually present (and IMO he should only rarely accompany a party) an Inquisitor's Ordo, personality, philosophy and faction should have an actual influence on how the Acolytes do their work and how the campaign plays out.

Less bookkeeping would be nice as well. I think some information about the value of items and services should be included (the Acolytes might have to go undercover during an adventure), but generally I'd expect the Acolytes to be able to requisition most of their basic equipment.

What I'd like to see would be a bigger presence of the Inquisitor himself within the rules - the fact that he was not much more than D&D's 'mysterious stranger in a tavern' was one of the glaring omissions in DH1.

I'm not so much talking about Inquisitors as player characters (even though that has already been announced) but rather as a sort of "bracket" for the party - similar to the way a RT party constructs their space ship. Even when he's not actually present (and IMO he should only rarely accompany a party) an Inquisitor's Ordo, personality, philosophy and faction should have an actual influence on how the Acolytes do their work and how the campaign plays out.

I think you might be pleased with this edition.

I'm pretty optimistic.

I always had the impression that the closer integration of Theme and Rules was something that FFG very much brought to the table, whereas DH1 - at least the way the basic rulebook presented it - was still conceived solely by Black Industries and therefore felt a bit like "WHFRP in Space", regardless of the title... at least that was the impression from the outside.

Oh, and while I'm wishlisting - I think something like 'contacts' gained by the acolytes would be nice for a investigation heavy game. That was one thing I absolutely enjoyed when I played Shadowrun way back in the 90's.

Looking at the char sheet, it seems mutations have been removed. This is horrible

Quite the opposite, actually.

They just combined the Malignancies and Mutations separate tables into a single one. Only took a quick look at this section, but it seems you still have the option of rolling up a multi-armed burrowing acid-blooded warp-spawn

Higher competence? =/ ****, how much? I REALLY like the early game with the low, gritty gear and desperate fighting.

I would like DH to be revised with the hard presumption that players won't be using any miniatures whatsoever.

I would like DH to be revised with the hard presumption that players won't be using any miniatures whatsoever.

This edition doesn't assume anything.

I've heard people say similar things about the original DH. I look forward to finding out whether the sentiment is just as inapplicable here.

I've heard people say similar things about the original DH. I look forward to finding out whether the sentiment is just as inapplicable here.

Where does the original DH imply you'd be using miniatures? Or any of the later corebooks?

The original DH and all of the later books didn't require you to have miniatures. Which is thankful, even if a good number of people here are also 40K wargamers, I am not and have no desire to start.

I'm hoping for this to eventually give us something like Ascension, but not a sloppy mess of mechanics. The option to play an Inquisitor and his retinue, or a small group of Inquisitors, is just too much fun to ignore. Ravenor was my introduction to 40k, and I've always wished for Dark Heresy to handle like it.

EDIT: I also want a Fortress World option ASAP. As it stands, playing a Psyker who has ties to the Guard is impossible without being a rogue psyker. My beloved Sanctionite Atellus of the Lastratin 2nd Light Infantry can either be from the Imperial Guard or Sanctioned, but not both. And that's terrible.

The only odd thing is that the player's party is no longer listed as an Inquisitor's Acolyte cell, but his "Warband"

The only odd thing is that the player's party is no longer listed as an Inquisitor's Acolyte cell, but his "Warband"

Warband has traditionally been the name for an Inquisitor's bunch, with Retinue and Warband being interchangeable. Cell was a new term for DH, I think.

This may reflect the increase in power level.

The book has rules for playing as an Inquisitor, so you can do an Inquisitor and his henchman or the typical Acolyte cell.

BYE

I'm pretty thrilled Wounds are dead & buried, and that the half-full-half-arsed action system has gone point based instead. Those were some of our biggest complaints.

I've heard people say similar things about the original DH. I look forward to finding out whether the sentiment is just as inapplicable here.

So have I, and so do I. DH1e didn't "not assume", it very much assumed you wouldn't be using miniatures. I've occasionally seen people claim distances in DH1e make no sense, to accommodate miniatures. That hilariously wrong. Distances might seem strange for abstract play, but they mostly work fine. For miniature use, however, they're so broken it's absurd. And there's no easy, generally applicable way to convert them to something workable.

Wishlist stuff:

• Support for miniatures - self-explanatory, I really hope.
• Support for "quick/narrative combat" - just like DH1e operates with narrative and combat time, it'd be nice if DH2e had a rules framework for handling combat encounters that aren't about skirmish tactics and strategy. Because combat doesn't have to be about the combat. Sometimes it's just the GM signalling the group it's time to move. Other times it's about things like ethics. And still other times it's about mind-blasting horror. Point is: a lot of combat is much better with very little dice rolling.
• Support for Tactical combat - Let's face it, DH is the offspring of WH40K, a Tactical combat game. And Tactical Combat is very much the **** Hitting Fan scale of DH. So either a system for Tactical combat, or a neat way to plug DH2e into WH40K would be borderline essential.
• Abandon WS & BS - They're Wargame leftovers that don't logically fit where they're stuck. Their names explain the problem: they're Skills posing as Characteristics, in a system where Skills are derived from Characteristics. It is nonsense.
• Improved and clarified Corruption and Insanity mechanics - A lot of people seem to have endless trouble interpreting them. Personally we've had to GM-Fiat the accumulation of them, as DH1e RAW would have driven our character nuts and reduced them to sludge before they were half-way through a campaign. I suspect I'd like both turned into something tied more closely to the personality of characters, and something which could be lost or gained frequently, but would tend to stay at a consistent value for a consistent PC.
• Rules framework for running factions - Bomster touched on it above when asking for a framework for handling the Inquisitor employing the PCs. I'd like something that goes further. I'd like a reasonably simple system for tracking multiple PC related factions, one that can handle PC employers, rivals and opportunistic exploiters and whatever else typically comes up over the course of a campaign.
• Multiple Identities - At least in our games, the PCs rarely get to be themselves. Sometimes it's just places they infiltrate (as in, for example, the free adventure for DH1e), but more often it's organisations. Indeed, the game itself comes across as if PCs are expected to use cover identities. But there's no rules framework for doing so. By DH1e RAW, the Munitorum contact you made while posing as an Administratum scribe, is just as happy to supply you under the table now you're posing as underthive secessionist scum. Just like the Tactical combat & miniatures stuff, this isn't just low-hanging fruit, it's kind of required for the type of game DH wants to be.
• Toughness/Armour revision - I like the concept, but the execution is terrible. Good physique beats good armour hands down in the 41st millennium, because by then... Everyone's made of some sort of super-hardened carbon fiber material? It's silly, and it's detrimental to the whole "people are puny, gear is god" thing 40K has going on. It's kind of like the system says we'll be playing Batman, but only has rules for Superman. Also, Naked Dwarf! This has needed fixing since WFRP2e, and it's only gotten worse since then. I read teh interwebs on occasion. I know we're not the only ones who've hated this since before DH, and hated it even worse ever since DH.
• Armour & Gear degradation - File this under "wouldn't it be cool if.." I'd like to see wear and tear rules. Optional ones so people who don't want them don't feel forced to use them. Oh and..
• Nerf the crafting rules - Per DH1e Acolytes can just about build a voidship with the right combination of skills.

Wishlist stuff:

• Support for "quick/narrative combat" - just like DH1e operates with narrative and combat time, it'd be nice if DH2e had a rules framework for handling combat encounters that aren't about skirmish tactics and strategy. Because combat doesn't have to be about the combat. Sometimes it's just the GM signalling the group it's time to move. Other times it's about things like ethics. And still other times it's about mind-blasting horror. Point is: a lot of combat is much better with very little dice rolling.
• Improved and clarified Corruption and Insanity mechanics - A lot of people seem to have endless trouble interpreting them. Personally we've had to GM-Fiat the accumulation of them, as DH1e RAW would have driven our character nuts and reduced them to sludge before they were half-way through a campaign. I suspect I'd like both turned into something tied more closely to the personality of characters, and something which could be lost or gained frequently, but would tend to stay at a consistent value for a consistent PC.
• Rules framework for running factions - Bomster touched on it above when asking for a framework for handling the Inquisitor employing the PCs. I'd like something that goes further. I'd like a reasonably simple system for tracking multiple PC related factions, one that can handle PC employers, rivals and opportunistic exploiters and whatever else typically comes up over the course of a campaign.
• Toughness/Armour revision - I like the concept, but the execution is terrible. Good physique beats good armour hands down in the 41st millennium, because by then... Everyone's made of some sort of super-hardened carbon fiber material? It's silly, and it's detrimental to the whole "people are puny, gear is god" thing 40K has going on. It's kind of like the system says we'll be playing Batman, but only has rules for Superman. Also, Naked Dwarf! This has needed fixing since WFRP2e, and it's only gotten worse since then. I read teh interwebs on occasion. I know we're not the only ones who've hated this since before DH, and hated it even worse ever since DH.

Quoting what I agree with you on. There's one that bears repeating: a lot of combat is much better with very little dice rolling . For an investigative game, the meat of the system sure is built around beating the stuffing out of each other.

The Toughness/Armour issue also needs revision. Penetration goes higher than Armour ever will (sans vehicles) and so Toughness (which lacks a Penetration equivalent) is king. Even Felling only works on Unnaturals. It's absurd to have a naked Space Marine get riddled with lead and suffer no ill effect but a Guardsman in armour as thick as that Marine's skin will be chewed in half by the same attack. As it stands, being a big blob of Toughness and Evasion work much better than armour and cover.

Faction ranking is a mechanic I have always loved, and suits Inquisitor-level play especially well. Tracking one's sway in their own Ordo and conspiracies is always neat.

A thing I found odd as well; the chimera go half the armour value of some civilian vehicle...isn't it a military vehicle?

I know it is still a "light" vehicle but still..a civilian vehicle with the same speed, on wheels, got double armour on all 3 sides.

I've heard people say similar things about the original DH. I look forward to finding out whether the sentiment is just as inapplicable here.

Where does the original DH imply you'd be using miniatures? Or any of the later corebooks?

The original Dark Heresy was designed with the use of miniatures in mind. There was a side-bar talking about the use of miniatures.

Personally I feel the game was much easier with miniatures, at least at short ranges (until FFG introduced a bunch of rules that didn't work on a map, like hordes), but they were never obligatory, unlike d&d 4th, and so certain things were quite loose. It didn't bother with anything like facing or similar.

The original Dark Heresy was designed with the use of miniatures in mind. There was a side-bar talking about the use of miniatures.

Personally I feel the game was much easier with miniatures, at least at short ranges (until FFG introduced a bunch of rules that didn't work on a map, like hordes), but they were never obligatory, unlike d&d 4th, and so certain things were quite loose. It didn't bother with anything like facing or similar.

Typically speaking, "there's a sidebar about using miniatures" seldom means "designed with miniatures in mind". It means "we're making a concession to a particular style of play". "Designed with miniatures in mind" tends to mean that miniatures are an assumed default, as with D&D3.x/Pathfinder and D&D4.

And I would say that the default would be with miniatures (for short range engagements at least). The fact that distances are measured individual metres, and tracking the difference between someone with AB 3 vs one of 4 really suggest mapped (and so usually miniature based) combat to me. The same goes for a lot of the combat actions. I personally would see DH as being as designed for miniatures as Pathfinder is (but not relying on them to the same extent 4th edition d&d does).

Without spoiling too much, so far it's the exact opposite of what you want. Less skills, higher starting character competence, no money to count - that's what I've gotten so far.

Which, IMHO, is great, because what you want is the current DH with a few tweaks to character creation - you pretty much have that already, so why wish for more of the same?

**** right, what I want is DH with improved rules and more content, a version 2.0 if you will, not a streamlined modern remake

Throwing my lot in for "wanted an update, got a remake/overhaul that I did not want and do not like."

As part of a group who has played out all our major combat encounters on the tabletop using terrain & miniatures for the last few years now, I can't help but wonder...

Have any of you "it was designed with minis in mind" people actually tried playing it using minis?

The range thing is especially baffling to me. DH1e distances are a complete and utter mess on the tabletop. Only a very few RAW distances are usable as-is on the tabletop, and there is no universal way to translate the rest to something that plays sensibly on the tabletop.

As for the metre thing, if the point was to be miniature friendly, the measures would surely have been feet or inches. Citadel minis and the 28mm scale in general is based on using inches as the measure on the tabletop. Using metres in the rules is not a huge problem, but it - I really hope obviously - is never going to be ideal.