They say that they will not convert the new game lines, but is this going to be a core rule book similar to the blue book of the new world of darkness? I imagine that an expansion for playing Astartes would be just an expansion and not a new core book. Any thoughts?

While on the topic of Astartes, any musings on what stats would look like for Space Marines with these new rules?

Astartes have always had around 40-50 or so in all of their stats.

I think this is an experiment from FFG. I certainly hope this doesn't become the new baseline.

Is it worth getting or just a waste of $20.00?

Is it worth getting or just a waste of $20.00?

Some people might like this game. Most do not. Even if FFG listens to the complaints here, I doubt they'll remove entire new systems they've included. Those systems are not very good.

Spend your money on Only War instead, honestly. You can turn that into Dark Heresy easily enough. I did a conversion that you can find on the OW forums.

I've been using the OW rules in my DH game since OW came out. They just work better.

It's far too early to make any claims about the beta rules being poor or most people not liking them.

If you want to contribute to the discussion about the beta playtest, it is worth $20. If you don't want to contribute but rather just spectate (or ignore) that process then it is not worth $20.

Some people might like this game. Most do not.

You mean most of your friends? Or do you have any real way of backing up this absurd claim?

Some people might like this game. Most do not.

You mean most of your friends? Or do you have any real way of backing up this absurd claim?

The forums here! Most folks are put off by the Action Points system and what has happened to the Armoury (guns and armour make little sense). Going back to Talent trees after getting rid of them for BC/OW seems like a massive step back.

There's a lot to dislike here.

Some people might like this game. Most do not.

You mean most of your friends? Or do you have any real way of backing up this absurd claim?

Apparently the 20-25 people who have posted in this forum over the last day or two constitutes "most people".

Is it worth getting or just a waste of $20.00?

Well, it is a beta test. If you are looking for a finished game chances are you'll be disappointed. Maybe better to wait for the finished game and read a couple of reviews.

There's a lot to dislike here.

Oh yeah?! Name three things!

That's a joke. Good luck with your crusade. Sorry this version isn't for you and yours. Happy gaming!

Not to take any sides here bladerunner, but one thing that irk me from what I've read here and this is mostly for fluff reasons:

Armoury stats are way off.

The meltagun, a dedicated anti armour weapon can't completely negate cloth robes. This weapon can one shot a Land Raider in the tabletop, granted it needs a good roll, but it can.

The Boltgun, most iconic weapon of the Adeptus Astartes can't breach Flak Armor.

Civilian cars have more armour then imperial guard APC's.

The evicerator, a giant chainsword somehow has more AP then anything else. Including power weapons, designed to pierce armor and even anti tank weapons.

Edit: out of curiosity, where are beta testers supposed to give their feedback? Is it in these forums then disregarding the posters as a minority is rather counter intuitive. A released forum? Sure, beta feedback? No.

Unless it's a form of preorders similar to what computergames often do.

Feedback goes right here on these forums.

Then I'm frankly confused as I'm getting mixed messages from Millianson. On one hand beta's are great as they get more feedback, which is true. Community testing can outpace inhouse by a huge margin. On the other hand the comment about people posting negative feedback are in a minority and frankly being condescending about those people is...weird to me.

Yes, there's a few people posting, and they WILL be in a minority when the game is released, but it isn't released and you had them pay to playtest your game and are pointing out errors you missed. Everything from minor typos, small oversights in wording of rules to huge gamebreaking problems.

You either do it for free, or get paid to do it in house. They pay to do it, and you're being snappy about it even though they're pointing out your flaws. Some are arguable, quite a few about personal taste but also quite a few showing clearly broken mechanics and statistics for ingame actions. And that's after day one, with 20'ish people. Maybe not something to be snappy and sarcastic about.

Then I'm frankly confused as I'm getting mixed messages from Millianson. On one hand beta's are great as they get more feedback, which is true. Community testing can outpace inhouse by a huge margin. On the other hand the comment about people posting negative feedback are in a minority and frankly being condescending about those people is...weird to me.Yes, there's a few people posting, and they WILL be in a minority when the game is released, but it isn't released and you had them pay to playtest your game and are pointing out errors you missed. Everything from minor typos, small oversights in wording of rules to huge gamebreaking problems. You either do it for free, or get paid to do it in house. They pay to do it, and you're being snappy about it even though they're pointing out your flaws. Some are arguable, quite a few about personal taste but also quite a few showing clearly broken mechanics and statistics for ingame actions. And that's after day one, with 20'ish people. Maybe not something to be snappy and sarcastic about.

Yes, feedback is needed to make the game better, but going "most people don't like it", and using a forum page where only 25 people or so have posted, and not all of them disliking the general jist of the rules, is dishonest. It also doesn't contribute to making the game better, it only contributes to more antagonistic behaviour between those who disagree, which we're already seeing from those who, after only a day, seem to vehemently hate the new system, and not just dislike the bugs that are inherent to a beta version of a new system.

It's all well and good people disliking the concepts of the game rules, like the new wound system, but FFG aren't going to scrap it, it's just not going to happen. The best we can all hope for is for changes to the more narrow issues, like the armour and pen problems, etc.

I guess I'd just like people to try to be more constructive, rather than venting. If people hate the core changes, things that aren't going to be altered, they'd be better off not wasting their time on the new rules.

DH 2.0 Beta is on for less than 24 hours and the first reactions are usualy the most extreme. Some steam is being vented (**** Advance Tables and Combat!) but after that feedback will come, for example Armoury can be fixed, it just needs work.

Now there is phase of raging and describing what is liked and what is not (did I mention I hate step back from aptitudes to Advance Tables?).

Then I'm frankly confused as I'm getting mixed messages from Millianson. On one hand beta's are great as they get more feedback, which is true. Community testing can outpace inhouse by a huge margin. On the other hand the comment about people posting negative feedback are in a minority and frankly being condescending about those people is...weird to me.Yes, there's a few people posting, and they WILL be in a minority when the game is released, but it isn't released and you had them pay to playtest your game and are pointing out errors you missed. Everything from minor typos, small oversights in wording of rules to huge gamebreaking problems. You either do it for free, or get paid to do it in house. They pay to do it, and you're being snappy about it even though they're pointing out your flaws. Some are arguable, quite a few about personal taste but also quite a few showing clearly broken mechanics and statistics for ingame actions. And that's after day one, with 20'ish people. Maybe not something to be snappy and sarcastic about.

I wish I got paid for it - it's a volunteer gig, I get no money from it.

Yes, feedback is needed to make the game better, but going "most people don't like it", and using a forum page where only 25 people or so have posted, and not all of them disliking the general jist of the rules, is dishonest. It also doesn't contribute to making the game better, it only contributes to more antagonistic behaviour between those who disagree, which we're already seeing from those who, after only a day, seem to vehemently hate the new system, and not just dislike the bugs that are inherent to a beta version of a new system.

It's all well and good people disliking the concepts of the game rules, like the new wound system, but FFG aren't going to scrap it, it's just not going to happen. The best we can all hope for is for changes to the more narrow issues, like the armour and pen problems, etc.

I guess I'd just like people to try to be more constructive, rather than venting. If people hate the core changes, things that aren't going to be altered, they'd be better off not wasting their time on the new rules.

Horse-pucky! It's "love it or leave it" statements like this that aren't productive in the long run.

I've not said you have to love it, I'm saying that some things aren't going to change. They aren't going to scrap 90% of the beta and make it like Only War. People coming from that angle are just going to be frustrated.

I have issues with the rules as they currently stand, but I like the concept behind, say, the wound system, the chargen system, etc, so I'm going to try to help fix the bits that can be changed at this point, and I hope others will too.

I've not said you have to love it, I'm saying that some things aren't going to change. They aren't going to scrap 90% of the beta and make it like Only War. People coming from that angle are just going to be frustrated.

I have issues with the rules as they currently stand, but I like the concept behind, say, the wound system, the chargen system, etc, so I'm going to try to help fix the bits that can be changed at this point, and I hope others will too.

I won't. I think they are bad rules and I'm going to say so. Often and loudly. I think that FFG should be willing to accept that they might have a dud here. If they're not, then they are making bad decisions... and I say that because (as I mentioned in another thread) I just read a lengthy post by a game designer from another company who said outright that they are will, in the name of a better product, to scrap 90% of the rules and re-write from scratch if that's what playtester feedback says they should do. Being unwilling to do that is a mistake .

A game company exists to put out rules for games, by definition. If your market does not like your rules, and you ignore that, then you are ignoring your market. While this can be profitable, it doesn't make you any friends.

A repeat of Paizo's playtests is not what anyone wants here.

It might be a mistake, and I'm not saying changing fundamental parts of the new system will be bad, I'm just calling it for what it is. If they do rip the whole thing up, I'll be the first in line to apologise for being wrong, but all my experience tells me a wholesale rewrite of any part of the system won't happen.

It didn't with Only War, it didn't with Edge of the Empire (which had just as many people decrying it), and unless I'm entirely wrong, it won't happen here.

I just read a lengthy post by a game designer from another company who said outright that they are will, in the name of a better product, to scrap 90% of the rules and re-write from scratch if that's what playtester feedback says they should do. Being unwilling to do that is a mistake .

Being too willing to do it is also a mistake - the ongoing open playtest of D&D Next (D&D 5th Edition) doesn't look like the designers have a solid idea of what the core game should be , because they've gone back and scrapped things so many times because of the outcry of a fundamentally-divided playerbase.

Beyond that, if a company is willing to scrap 90% of the game, then it also faces great swaths of the fanbase complaining about the game being delayed - because re-writing a game takes time.

The Only War playtest didn't introduce sweeping changes, but it was focussed and achieved something - weekly iterative updates is less common than you might think when it comes to RPG playtests. That's a good approach to take.

This entire project is a waste of time and I have better things to do. I want my money back.

A game company exists to put out rules for games, by definition. If your market does not like your rules, and you ignore that, then you are ignoring your market. While this can be profitable, it doesn't make you any friends.

A repeat of Paizo's playtests is not what anyone wants here.

Howdy,

What happened with the Paizo playtests?

Cheers,

Ken