More importantly is the amount of condition bloat involved. You potentially have to track conditions on 9 different tables, conditions that explicitly don't necessarily remove themselves when the wounds are treated. Sure, it may be realistic that after a few firefights your character is so damaged that he can barely do anything, but you shouldn't have to track 7 different wounds to do so.

"I'm at Impact 2 on my Right Arm, Energy 7 on my Head, and Rending 21 to my Body... I'm at Blood Loss (5) and Fatigue 3, I'm Stunned, I'm Nauseated, I'm Blinded for two rounds..."

It'll be a pain.

Which is why you write out what the wound is and the condition its causing, not a table reference.

Also, I think key to being a good GM is coming up with variations on the table. Some sort of "condition equivilancy" would be nice.

Agreed. The bad guys died at 0 Wounds unless they were super important, and thenCritival Damage tables came out when something unpleasant-but-awesome happened to a PC. Ditto for Perils.

They were a rare delight that broke narrative flow in the name of gory horrifying hilarity.

Making them a constant facet of combat jus leads to tedious book-keeping, constant turning of pages, and a slower combat than the slog it already is.

More importantly is the amount of condition bloat involved. You potentially have to track conditions on 9 different tables, conditions that explicitly don't necessarily remove themselves when the wounds are treated. Sure, it may be realistic that after a few firefights your character is so damaged that he can barely do anything, but you shouldn't have to track 7 different wounds to do so.

"I'm at Impact 2 on my Right Arm, Energy 7 on my Head, and Rending 21 to my Body... I'm at Blood Loss (5) and Fatigue 3, I'm Stunned, I'm Nauseated, I'm Blinded for two rounds..."

It'll be a pain.

Which is why you write out what the wound is and the condition its causing, not a table reference.

Also, I think key to being a good GM is coming up with variations on the table. Some sort of "condition equivilancy" would be nice.

You still have to know where you are on up to 9 different tables, because getting hit progresses it on that table.

Especially if the enemy is using more than one type of weapon.

Swords, a flamer & autopistols in a single fight?

Pull out all 9 of em

Especially if the enemy is using more than one type of weapon.

Swords, a flamer & autopistols in a single fight?

Pull out all 9 of em

That's not even unlikely! Your average gangers will have autopistols, a few laspistols, and knives or chainblades!

You still have to know where you are on up to 9 different tables, because getting hit progresses it on that table.

Pretty sure thats not the case.

Each time my character is hit by an attack, a total damage value is calculated. Then my defence score is subtracted from it. Then a wound effect modifier is applied (+5 per wound, +10 per crit). Then I take this final value, look it up on the damage table, and write down that effect. I suffer the conditions, which will need to be tracked, as well as the wound itself and its treated/untreated state.

Beyond this point, the magnitude of the damage I suffered is irrellevant. I could, in theory, be suffering from the results of Imapct 1, 7, and 15 on my characters head.

You still have to know where you are on up to 9 different tables, because getting hit progresses it on that table.

Pretty sure thats not the case.

Each time my character is hit by an attack, a total damage value is calculated. Then my defence score is subtracted from it. Then a wound effect modifier is applied (+5 per wound, +10 per crit). Then I take this final value, look it up on the damage table, and write down that effect. I suffer the conditions, which will need to be tracked, as well as the wound itself and its treated/untreated state.

Beyond this point, the magnitude of the damage I suffered is irrellevant. I could, in theory, be suffering from the results of Imapct 1, 7, and 15 on my characters head.

Which the GM has to remember as well, so that's quickly 15 different injuries in a small party of acolytes who've been in a fight? I LIKE the core principle of the system. It has alot of potential but right now it feels overly complex and clunky. Streamline it abit and we got something great.

Which the GM has to remember as well, so that's quickly 15 different injuries in a small party of acolytes who've been in a fight? I LIKE the core principle of the system. It has alot of potential but right now it feels overly complex and clunky. Streamline it abit and we got something great.

Worse, the GM needs to track them on the mobs too (only critical damage is instagib) and at least have an idea where all the PC's are. That's a lot of needless tracking for the GM, who already has the most bookkeeping.

I think once people get a better hang of conditions it won't be as bad. Most of them are dealt with pretty quickly. Beyond fatigue, most of it resolves quickly.

-Blood Loss reduces over time, unless you pass out, at which point, unless the bleeding is stopped you due from fatigue.

-Burning will kill you if you don't deal with it quickly

-Characteristic Decay has its own way of being tracked and recovered

-Crippled is probably one of the worse ones to track as its tied to the wound

-Dazed/Stunned is suffered for a number of rounds, as well as Deafened/Blind (although each of these have a few instances of being tied to the wound being healed)

-Lost Body part is permenant

-Prone is a state

-Slowed

-Weakened is probably the worst condition to track, with odd stacking mechanics (it stacks, but recovers at varying intervals, highly depended on the source of being weakened)

There are a total of 36 conditions that contain the wording "Until the wound is healed." There are nearly 190 distinct conditions in the system. A little less than 1/5th of the conditions. Certainly, rough bookkeeping, but chances out you won't have too many wounds that require conditions tracked alongside the healing of the wound itself.

You still have to know where you are on up to 9 different tables, because getting hit progresses it on that table.

It's not how I'm reading it. The way I understand it, you only track the overall number of Wounds suffered (and whether they're critical or not) and every new Wound's effect is just final damage of the hit that caused it plus five per any prior Wound, regardless whether you were hit before in the same place or not.

Uh, I'm not sure I'm communicating that clearly, so here's an example of how I think it works.

Acolyte is hit in the head with a laspistol for 4 damage after reduction. Check the effect for number 4 on Energy-Head table, apply effect, write down one wound. Next round, he's hit in the leg for 7 damage with a chainsword. Check 7+5 (for the one Wound)=12 on Rending-Leg table, apply effect and write down another wound. Next, he eats a stub revolver shot to the body for 3 damage after reduction. Check 3+10(for two previous Wounds)=13 on Impact-Body table, apply, mark another Wound... so on, so forth.

You still have to know where you are on up to 9 different tables, because getting hit progresses it on that table.

It's not how I'm reading it. The way I understand it, you only track the overall number of Wounds suffered (and whether they're critical or not) and every new Wound's effect is just final damage of the hit that caused it plus five per any prior Wound, regardless whether you were hit before in the same place or not. Uh, I'm not sure I'm communicating that clearly, so here's an example of how I think it works. Acolyte is hit in the head with a laspistol for 4 damage after reduction. Check the effect for number 4 on Energy-Head table, apply effect, write down one wound. Next round, he's hit in the leg for 7 damage with a chainsword. Check 7+5 (for the one Wound)=12 on Rending-Leg table, apply effect and write down another wound. Next, he eats a stub revolver shot to the body for 3 damage after reduction. Check 3+10(for two previous Wounds)=13 on Impact-Body table, apply, mark another Wound... so on, so forth.

That is how it works, yes.

To my mind in a roleplaying session, once I have a handle on the rules, I should have to open the rulebook maybe once or twice in a session. At most. In an ideal session, I should never have to crack the book.

Full agreement here. I'm a huge proponent of rules-light game systems, and not having to constantly skim through the book is a big deal breaker for me. When I played DH1 I created playsheets for myself and the players, collecting the important modifiers and action types on a smallish (A5) laminated cheat sheet. Worked like a charm. Now, with 9 Crit Tables used in every battle, I'll probably need a GM screen just for those...

I'm not that big on hit points, either, but some kind of elegant damage status per body zone (healthy - wounded - incapacitated) would have sufficed, with some crit tables as optional feature for 'bossfights' and the likes.

I have been a big supporter of the WH40k rpg line. I have bought every product with the exception of the Black Crusade line, as it is just not my cup of tea. I will not be supporting a second edition of Dark Heresy that is not compatible with the rest of the line. Fantasy Flight has been my favorite board game company for a while now, but it is quickly becoming my least favorite RPG company. Changing the WH40k system like this is as bad a move as changing the War hammer fantasy RPG system. Please reconsider the system change. I would like to continue to support your line, but will not do so if this is the direction you are going in.

Bought it from rpgnow. Read it to page 201. I like it so far. I played 1st Ed since it came out and I have to say 2nd (my opinion) is al lot more fun to play. Now I have to read on, gonna GM next week!

I think its a good game !

I have been a big supporter of the WH40k rpg line. I have bought every product with the exception of the Black Crusade line, as it is just not my cup of tea. I will not be supporting a second edition of Dark Heresy that is not compatible with the rest of the line. Fantasy Flight has been my favorite board game company for a while now, but it is quickly becoming my least favorite RPG company. Changing the WH40k system like this is as bad a move as changing the War hammer fantasy RPG system. Please reconsider the system change. I would like to continue to support your line, but will not do so if this is the direction you are going in.

The only difference for me is that I do own every 40K RPG core and supplement.

As this iteration of the core rules is so divergent from all that has come before it, I have very little interest in anything other than its fluff. Very little. Thanks, but no thanks.

Do people who think DH2E is too divergent really think the various iterations were that cross-complimentary?

It was still, relatively speaking, in the same universe- compared to this game, who literally created a new sector to escape at and make sure its never going to meet any of its relatives.

Do people who think DH2E is too divergent really think the various iterations were that cross-complimentary?

Howdy,

Compared to what we are reading in DH 2.0, Yes. I run a campaign that has characters from DH, RT and DW, and it runs fine. DH requires the most interpretive work, but that really is not too bad. DH 2.0 is really a sea-change, and I do not see it as offering enough for me to make the other games that I use backwards compatible with it.

The solid strategy would have been to make a unified system or at least bring DH up to speed with the more recent iterations of the 40K game line (BC or OW). Changing the system to such a degree and stating from the outset that the other games will NOT be following suit is a real head-scratcher.

My 2-cents,

Ken

Everything but DH was pretty much cross-compatible, now DH is even less compatible.

I understand that this is a lot more different from DH1E or OW than OW was from BC. But is the only thing left for FFG to do with 40k RPGs to bring each one in line with OW? Without casting any aspersion on OW, I think that's a terrible idea. BC and OW entailed improvement precisely because FFG did not tie themselves down to DH1E. Now they are not tying themselves down to what I'll call (with little accuracy) the "Calixis RPGs."

And I definitely remember a lot of complaints when RT came out about lack of compatibility ... and when DW came out ... and so on ...

Which the GM has to remember as well, so that's quickly 15 different injuries in a small party of acolytes who've been in a fight? I LIKE the core principle of the system. It has alot of potential but right now it feels overly complex and clunky. Streamline it abit and we got something great.

Worse, the GM needs to track them on the mobs too (only critical damage is instagib) and at least have an idea where all the PC's are. That's a lot of needless tracking for the GM, who already has the most bookkeeping.

Wait, WHAT? Seriously? I presume mooks die instantly when they take damage, right? So only the big baddies have to suffer this.

I like the crit tables, but they're pushing it when it comes to having to open the book, flipping through the pages and figuring out what horrid thing happened to the players but that's relatively rare event and usually followed by a PC death. Or a "boss", usually followed by the boss dying or fleeing and returning more mechanical and heretical then before.

I don't need to do this for low/mid mooks do I? I mean, I could houserule but the developers probably had an idea behind it and I'd be interested in hearing experiences people have had with it.

Mooks don't take wound effects and die on two wounds.

Personaly, I give 10 wounds to my mooks, sometimes a bit less depending on how the flow of combat went...hitting a guy once and then him dying is, to me, merely flavour kill than any form of challenge or combat.

with this sytem they would get a couple of wounds, 3 tops, and then die horribly.

Excellent, started to read it all from the start and haven't gotten that far. What about higher tier ones? Because after awhile they'll be facing harder stuff then mooks. Two wounds? Sounds like a slight nerf to singelshot weapons but oh well.

Elite opponents are like PCs regarding regular wounds but still die instantly on a critical wound.

Master opponents are like PCs regarding both regular and critical wounds.