I am really looking forward to see where this edition of DH goes. In my opinion it is a great initiative.

I have not had any chance to play test it, but by looking through the rules it appears to me that if you want your character to survive Agility and Evade is the way to go? You start with 35+ usually in agility and can get +5 agility each rank up to a max of +50. Most players will be around rank 5 or 6, so that is 60+ agility. With evade skill on rank 4 or 5 it is an additional +20/+30 to the dodge roll.

Combined with the poor scaling of armor, where a power armor hardly reaches armor factor of 5 (body 6), and then toughness bonus of say 6 (same arguments as agility) give you a 11 resistance, usually worse. But a primitive sword will easily have average damage of 12+, so on average you get a wound from a hit, which quickly accumulates up.

Btw. if you think that building up both toughness and agility is too expensive, just take Nimble.

But my point still stands, since armor is so weak and wounds always accumulate +5 for each wound, is there any point in trying to build a toughness brute? Dodge seems to be all important?

Someone who has played tested this might have a some insights that I have missed?

BTW: In the Evasion section it says dodge is vs. ranged attacks. In the combat section it says dodge can be used both vs. ranged and melee attacks.

Remember that force fields apparently don't work if you try to evade an attack.

Of note; Bionic Legs can be acquired as Starting Equipment (they only have a -10 to acquire!) and can give +20 to Agility for one turn a number of times a day equal to its status rating.

I foresee a lot of Assassins amputating their own legs...

This kind of game mastery stuff really puts me off. It would be better to have rules set up to avoid power gaming than to burden GMs with the responsibility of reminding everyone of the "spirit of the game."

Armour is inferior to Toughness, because Penetration is so common and rapidly grows beyond what anything other than vehicular armor can take. Becoming a corpulent lard-ass is more effective than putting on Power Armour.

Toughness is inferior to Dodge, because avoiding all damage is better than letting even 1 point slip through and stick that nasty +5 to Wounds on you.

Your options for safety in Dark Heresy 2e are to either live inside a car (which is inexplicably twice as well armoured as the default APC of the Imperial Guard) or strip yourself naked, butter yourself up, and start doing ninja flips off the walls.

OTOH, characters with high A still only have 4AP and they are more likely to go first. Characters at the top of initiative will need to consider saving AP for Evade attempts. They cannot Delay either without spending 1AP. In other words, AP means that Evade is an "active ability" compared to the "passive ability" of relying on armor and T. Because it is "active" (i.e., consumes a resource on a per-use basis) Evade ought to be better.

OTOH, characters with high A still only have 4AP and they are more likely to go first. Characters at the top of initiative will need to consider saving AP for Evade attempts. They cannot Delay either without spending 1AP. In other words, AP means that Evade is an "active ability" compared to the "passive ability" of relying on armor and T. Because it is "active" (i.e., consumes a resource on a per-use basis) Evade ought to be better.

You could build a character around having high Ag and melee skills, and just fight using Counter-Attack. It eould be silly, but workable. :3

Is a "Parting Blow" the same as a "Disruptive Blow"?

If so, then I don't think a Counter-Attack build is necessarily silly or that it would invalidate my point above. I don't think it's silly because it's just a matter of being a skillful melee fighter; it's a classic parry-riposte. It's not like Counter-Attack applies to ranged attacks -- now that would be silly indeed! As for the AP issue, in order to use Counter-Attack you have to be attacked. Having high A means you are less likely to be able to use Counter-Attack without, as I mentioned before, having to save AP on the chance you're attacked. And remember that Disruptive Blows (like normal Melee Attacks) require more AP to be more effective.

Just imagining it, the Counter-Attack character you describe uses initiative to run up to the enemy and ... wait to be attacked. If a player didn't bother RPing that, it would be silly for sure.

Your options for safety in Dark Heresy 2e are to either live inside a car (which is inexplicably twice as well armoured as the default APC of the Imperial Guard) or strip yourself naked, butter yourself up, and start doing ninja flips off the walls.

Man, this is ridiculous. FFG has stated that the beta had been playtested.

I mean really? By who? Whoever playtested it, failed miserably. Almost anyone at these forums I see posting, could have alone done a way better job. So, the ones who playtested it are most likely not from here, meaning they are not listening to the actual players. Not good, really.

While I definitely agree with the concerns over armor scaling (and the overall lack of armors to begin with), I'm beginning to believe that the characteristic advancement problems are being over exaggerated. Has anyone actual built up a high-level character? How did you spend experience, and did you just min-max the hell out of it or did you actually construct a balanced, believable character? Are you sure that a Rank 6 character can add +50 to his Agility Characteristic AND increase his WS, BS, Toughness, and maybe Strength and Willpower and Perception, and, you know, all those other important Characteristics.

Yes, armor is a real concern and I was VERY irritated to see the limited armor selections. But Evade being the end all is not something I see quite yet (the key being yet; I'm open to being disproved).

While I definitely agree with the concerns over armor scaling (and the overall lack of armors to begin with), I'm beginning to believe that the characteristic advancement problems are being over exaggerated. Has anyone actual built up a high-level character? How did you spend experience, and did you just min-max the hell out of it or did you actually construct a balanced, believable character? Are you sure that a Rank 6 character can add +50 to his Agility Characteristic AND increase his WS, BS, Toughness, and maybe Strength and Willpower and Perception, and, you know, all those other important Characteristics.

Yes, armor is a real concern and I was VERY irritated to see the limited armor selections. But Evade being the end all is not something I see quite yet (the key being yet; I'm open to being disproved).

Evasion being better isn't an issue with this release so much as it is with all of 40kRPG. We saw this issue with the Vindicare in Ascension, I've seen jt with a Dark Eldar character in an RT campaign. Dodge is better than Armor and Toughness.

As for characteristics advancing; players are often powergamers. I know of more than one player in my group that would look at a 95% shot at avoiding any attack and would take it even if it gimped him in other ways. If an option exists, a player will find it.

The old Five Characteristic Advance system still didn't prevent this. Doubling the number of advances will only make it worse.

Your options for safety in Dark Heresy 2e are to either live inside a car (which is inexplicably twice as well armoured as the default APC of the Imperial Guard) or strip yourself naked, butter yourself up, and start doing ninja flips off the walls.

Man, this is ridiculous. FFG has stated that the beta had been playtested.

I mean really? By who? Whoever playtested it, failed miserably. Almost anyone at these forums I see posting, could have alone done a way better job. So, the ones who playtested it are most likely not from here, meaning they are not listening to the actual players. Not good, really.

I'm from here, as are most of the playtesters - they just don't announce themselves as such. If you look in the playtest credits, you'll recognise some names from around these forums, and other major 40k forums/sites.

Also, you seem to be implying that everything the playtesters find and report results in change. We just send in the reports, what action is taken based on them is out of our hands.

Your options for safety in Dark Heresy 2e are to either live inside a car (which is inexplicably twice as well armoured as the default APC of the Imperial Guard) or strip yourself naked, butter yourself up, and start doing ninja flips off the walls.

Man, this is ridiculous. FFG has stated that the beta had been playtested.

I mean really? By who? Whoever playtested it, failed miserably. Almost anyone at these forums I see posting, could have alone done a way better job. So, the ones who playtested it are most likely not from here, meaning they are not listening to the actual players. Not good, really.

I'm from here, as are most of the playtesters - they just don't announce themselves as such. If you look in the playtest credits, you'll recognise some names from around these forums, and other major 40k forums/sites.

Also, you seem to be implying that everything the playtesters find and report results in change. We just send in the reports, what action is taken based on them is out of our hands.

But if people send in glaring issues and problems, like cars being better armoured then military APC's and nothing is done (so far) what's the point of internal playtesting? It sounds more like an infernal excercise in futility. I don't have the rules, yet. Pitching it to a local RP group, but from what I'm reading I see alot of stuff I'm interested in trying out and alot of stuff that aren't small oversights but glaring issues that must be houseruled.

While I definitely agree with the concerns over armor scaling (and the overall lack of armors to begin with), I'm beginning to believe that the characteristic advancement problems are being over exaggerated. Has anyone actual built up a high-level character? How did you spend experience, and did you just min-max the hell out of it or did you actually construct a balanced, believable character? Are you sure that a Rank 6 character can add +50 to his Agility Characteristic AND increase his WS, BS, Toughness, and maybe Strength and Willpower and Perception, and, you know, all those other important Characteristics.

Yes, armor is a real concern and I was VERY irritated to see the limited armor selections. But Evade being the end all is not something I see quite yet (the key being yet; I'm open to being disproved).

Evasion being better isn't an issue with this release so much as it is with all of 40kRPG. We saw this issue with the Vindicare in Ascension, I've seen jt with a Dark Eldar character in an RT campaign. Dodge is better than Armor and Toughness.

As for characteristics advancing; players are often powergamers. I know of more than one player in my group that would look at a 95% shot at avoiding any attack and would take it even if it gimped him in other ways. If an option exists, a player will find it.

The old Five Characteristic Advance system still didn't prevent this. Doubling the number of advances will only make it worse.

I might be missing something here, as I haven't had a full read through yet, but isn't evade now effectively an opposed check, so even if you have a 95% evade, you still need to generate more DoS than the opponent or you're still hit.

Not that having a 95% evade isn't great, just that it isn't as game breaking as it was in Dark Heresy Original.

Even if it is, compare that to the BS you need to give the opponents and what happens when they fire at a PC with low agility/dodge.

Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and get crucified by the public.

I'm not saying you are wrong that there are things that need changing, but there's only so much a group of 20 or so playtesters can do. It's reasons like this why I quite like the betas, it means even more people checking the game - it made Only War a hell of a lot better.

Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and get crucified by the public.

I'm not saying you are wrong that there are things that need changing, but there's only so much a group of 20 or so playtesters can do. It's reasons like this why I quite like the betas, it means even more people checking the game - it made Only War a hell of a lot better.

Hiding said Beta behind a paywall certainly helps "even more people" check out the game.

Oops.

Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and get crucified by the public.

I'm not saying you are wrong that there are things that need changing, but there's only so much a group of 20 or so playtesters can do. It's reasons like this why I quite like the betas, it means even more people checking the game - it made Only War a hell of a lot better.

Hiding said Beta behind a paywall certainly helps "even more people" check out the game.

Oops.

I'd prefer that to no beta, which is what GW would have said if FFG said they wanted to release it for free.

It's also better to lose $20 now, rather than $40-60 (depending on whether you got the PDF or hardback book) when the book was finally released.

I agree we have a chance to be heard, and the big cow in the living room problems be dealt with.

I might be missing something here, as I haven't had a full read through yet, but isn't evade now effectively an opposed check, so even if you have a 95% evade, you still need to generate more DoS than the opponent or you're still hit.

Not that having a 95% evade isn't great, just that it isn't as game breaking as it was in Dark Heresy Original.

You are correct Naviward. Dodge DoS is subtracted from attack DoS and then number of hits are determined. But with 80-90% dodge you can consistently avoid 4-5 hits every round if not more, assuming you have 2 AP for dodge (remember you can buy a talent that gives you an extra reaction AP).

My main concern is that it is quite hard to build up a brute that can soak in damage. Every wound count as +5 (+4 with talents) and once you go above 15 on wound score you are looking into some serious hurting. If you can not dodge the 4-5 hits in that round you are already into that ball park of damage, or am I wrong on this?

In other words there are a big difference on agility vs non-agility characters in the avoidance and the difference is so big that it becomes a challenge to design encounters around it.

I am not saying all players will be power gaming this, but if agility is required for survival in the rules, all it will accomplish is that someone will have to come with some house rules. Might as well try to fix it now, right?

Disclaimer: I have not play tested, so I am willing to acknowledge I am wrong, if someone has tried this out.

I might be missing something here, as I haven't had a full read through yet, but isn't evade now effectively an opposed check, so even if you have a 95% evade, you still need to generate more DoS than the opponent or you're still hit.

Not that having a 95% evade isn't great, just that it isn't as game breaking as it was in Dark Heresy Original.

You are correct Naviward. Dodge DoS is subtracted from attack DoS and then number of hits are determined. But with 80-90% dodge you can consistently avoid 4-5 hits every round if not more, assuming you have 2 AP for dodge (remember you can buy a talent that gives you an extra reaction AP).

My main concern is that it is quite hard to build up a brute that can soak in damage. Every wound count as +5 (+4 with talents) and once you go above 15 on wound score you are looking into some serious hurting. If you can not dodge the 4-5 hits in that round you are already into that ball park of damage, or am I wrong on this?

I am not saying all players will be power gaming this, but if agility is required for survival in the rules, all it will accomplish is that someone will have to come with some house rules. Might as well try to fix it now, right?

Disclaimer: I have not play tested, so I am willing to acknowledge I am wrong, if someone has tried this out.

It's looking oddly easy to kill pretty much everything with an autopistol if it isn't in armour and behind cover, if the +5 for a Wound is cumulative. (Which I don't believe, but could be wrong on.)

Well it should be easy to kill an unarmoured dude standing in the open with an autopistol . . .

Well it should be easy to kill an unarmoured dude standing in the open with an autopistol . . .

Oh, hush. You know what I meant :3

These rules reward multiple hits above damage itself, (in my eyes) unfairly. Something needs to drag that back in line or at least make single-hit attacks more viable.

Well it should be easy to kill an unarmoured dude standing in the open with an autopistol . . .

Oh, hush. You know what I meant :3

These rules reward multiple hits above damage itself, (in my eyes) unfairly. Something needs to drag that back in line or at least make single-hit attacks more viable.

That is the conclusion I am also arriving at. Mutliple small hits is far more dangerous than a single big hit, since even a 1 damage hit gets upgraded to +5, while a big +13 hits gets downgraded to +5.

Also the character sheet at the back of the book has 16 wound boxes, if they were all filled out it will mean +80 on the wound roll. But 30 is death, so it doesnt make sense? Not even mentioning the 16 critical wound boxes here...