I commented about this in another thread but I think before we all start jumping down FFG's throat about combat and action points that we ask politelty for them to explain how they feel they will make the game better. We are arguing in a vaccum right now and I would like to hear their side as to why they feel these changes will improve the game.
So I ask FFG politley may we please have a post or even a news article on why these changes were made so that we may better help in the Beta?
I think if you look at the basic list of changed features you can get an idea of why they added new things.
I for one like that any wound now has some sort of condition tied to it. I always hate how traditional HP systems have a "I'm good. I'm good, I'm good, OH CRAP I'M DEAD" sort of pacing. The initial 40k rpg helped this some with the crit tables, but even those had a tendency to spell doom for the character.
While I can appreciate that they wanted to make combat more cinematic I would prefer to just shoot someone and kill them rather than shoot them, give them a condition, shoot them again, give them a worse condition, etc. but if it is the way it goes there is always house ruling and YMMV. I still think it would be good for us to have an explanation rather than just trying to infrence their decisions from what has come out.
I agree that some transparency is crucial at this point.
That was a relatively good part about the only war beta, I believe.
Every week they kept us updated on what the feature was that was being tested or worked on, with a list of changes.
Lack of Wounds isnt the problem, complicated tables and many "weak" and so only slowing down effects are. My group used to play Dark Heresy (and its fan derivates) with simple houserule: there are no Wounds, once the damage passes your armour and toughness. it goes directly into the original DH criticals. So yes, it was brutal and fate points were burned as often as witches, but it was quick and cinematic. DH2 makes it too complex and boring.
(Sorry for offtopic about transparency)
Edited by TorogTarkdacil812I agree that some transparency is crucial at this point.
That was a relatively good part about the only war beta, I believe.
Every week they kept us updated on what the feature was that was being tested or worked on, with a list of changes.
I think they're doing that here as well -- keep in mind that we've had this beta for only a couple of days.
(Sorry for offtopic about transparency)
Its all good your point does illustrate that some groups dont use wounds others do, some crit tables are good others are not and one mans cinematic experiance is another mans drudgery. This is another reason why a post desribing the choices made would help. It wont convince everyone but once I can understand the logic behind it I can make better suggestions.
Agreed, so I am reserving my judgement at the moment until they've gotten a chance to organize the various craziness that has spawned in two days.
At least it shows interest.
Lack of Wounds isnt the problem, complicated tables and many "weak" and so only slowing down effects. My group used to play Dark Heresy (and its fan derivates) with simple houserule: there are no Wounds, once the damage passes your armour and toughness. it goes directly into the original DH criticals. So yes, it was brutal and fate points were burned as often as witches, but it was quick and cinematic. DH2 makes it too complex and boring.
(Sorry for offtopic about transparency)
That sounds like a load of fun.
Lack of Wounds isnt the problem, complicated tables and many "weak" and so only slowing down effects. My group used to play Dark Heresy (and its fan derivates) with simple houserule: there are no Wounds, once the damage passes your armour and toughness. it goes directly into the original DH criticals. So yes, it was brutal and fate points were burned as often as witches, but it was quick and cinematic. DH2 makes it too complex and boring.
(Sorry for offtopic about transparency)
That sounds like a load of fun.
It's how we play as well (nearly). It isn't ideal though, but it is better than DH1e RAW.
To make it less of a page-flipping fest, one of our players designed each crit as a card and printed up 10 copies of the lot. We've only been using them for a few months, but I'm not altogether sold on the idea. It's a truckload of cards and IMO finding the right one is even more of a bother than looking through crit tables.
I have the same reservations about the new damage system. In theory I love it to pieces. In practise I suspect we might just go back to the crit tables of DH1e. But worse to me (and I'm guessing to the rest of our group) is the Improved Improved Blubber of Invulnerability. Toughness was so overpowered it was borderline broken in WFRP2e. DH1e almost straight up made it twice as good. And from skimming DH2e it looks like Toughness has now become even better than it was in DH1e. Meanwhile, Armour has become just about useless.
It's the exact opposite of what needed to happen. So much so that my joke about subtracting Pen from Toughness is now something I'm seriously starting to consider.
I can easily appreciate the change to Action Points By No Misleading Name, and like the damage system it's a change I in theory love to pieces. In practise though, it's still a closed AP system, so functionally identical to what we already have. It's really just gotten a naming convention clean-up - which I'll freely admit was sorely needed.
Thing is, it still has the same weakness: it isn't open-ended. Which means that past a certain point, you have to start creating special rules for actors & actor types, to allow them to behave as they ought to within the AP system. In an open-ended AP system you can simply give various actors and actor types more or less AP - no individualised special rules required. It would be enormously much simpler for everyone, players & GMs, newbies & veterans. And take up waaay less page space.
Im glad others are interested in finding out the why's behind some of these choices. As to the argument I have seen in other threads from what I can assume are the alpha playtesters stating that FFG does not have to tell us why and wont change anything, if they did not want our input on this product then the beta should not have happened. Its as simple as that. We want to make Dark Heresy the best possible product it can be. All discussion should be civil but I think things still can be changed and I am willing to wait a while longer for a product that has been polished to the highest possible degree rather than have a product shipped out that could be better. just my two cents. YMMV
Im glad others are interested in finding out the why's behind some of these choices. As to the argument I have seen in other threads from what I can assume are the alpha playtesters stating that FFG does not have to tell us why and wont change anything, if they did not want our input on this product then the beta should not have happened. Its as simple as that. We want to make Dark Heresy the best possible product it can be. All discussion should be civil but I think things still can be changed and I am willing to wait a while longer for a product that has been polished to the highest possible degree rather than have a product shipped out that could be better. just my two cents. YMMV
I never once said they wouldn't change anything, and I resent you putting words into my mouth. What I did say is, while they will change things, as shown in Only War and Edge of the Empire, they won't change the fundamental system. Numbers and crits might be moved around, but the combat system will still look very similar to how it is now, they won't suddenly change it to the Only War rules and scrap everything as it currently is.
And if I'm wrong on that, I'm more than happy to apologise for being wrong.
My apologies Mllandson I didnt mean this to be an attack my wording could have been better to more acuratly reflect your and others statements and I will be sure to do so in the future. Once again I apologize.
Hey!
So I know the Play-testers are participating in the process, reading and posting- and I am sure that the Developers are reading everything as well.
But I think it would be really cool if we got to hear their bit and their arguments about our ideas.
What stuff they won't touch,what stuff they will touch- some technical limits on what they can and can't do as well, and just generally their opinion so that we won't feel as if were talking into a vacuum.
Not an actual announcement "we've entered second phase of beta thanks and keep them comments coming!" on the front page, but something closer to home, on these board, so that we feel that the process is actually doing something and were not just talking into thin air.
Thanks!
My apologies Mllandson I didnt mean this to be an attack my wording could have been better to more acuratly reflect your and others statements and I will be sure to do so in the future. Once again I apologize.
It's all good man, just a bit frustrated from the antagonism on the board at the moment. Hopefully it'll all calm down once we start getting errata.
@ Millsandson,
I wouldn't worry about any Antagonism- I am hoping that, at least for a number of us, were are genuinely discussing these things because a) We are fans, b) there's nothing I want more in the world than for this thing to actually work and be the freaking best thing EVER.
I don't think people here are looking for "errata"- I think we want some give and take, to be part of the process, now that were into it. Get glimpse into the ideas that motivated them. See if we can work out something that, perhaps, originally speaking, they didn't think off that could be better.
Who better than the GMs, despite all of our different point of views, who have actually been running Dark heresy for years now. Were the ones that going to be a) buying the books, b) encouraging people to try the games and buy the books. c) putting up a hype in our local circles, talking about it, keeping up the interest, attracting new clients.
I know that a GM which genuinely loves his system, especially for a niche game like this, would be an invaluable marketing tool.
Again, I don't think there's antagonism. So far, I've tried my best to provide constructive criticism and debate and I would LOVE for you, and the rest of the play-tester, and EVERYONE ELSE, to participate as much as possible in the discussion to let us know exactly how YOU felt when you played this game.
After all, [at least until I can host my game on sunday], your the one with the most experience with DH 2.0
Thank you very much for your time
Unfortunetly, the terms of the NDA that all parties sign effectily rules out any such transparency with us unless it comes as an offical announcment from FFG. Effectivly, they're not permitted to talk about the creative process, such as ideas and suggestions the writers have, at all, unless it's 'announced'.
Partially this is because a lot of good ideas that we, the players, would really enjoy get shot down by GW, and they want as little fan hate directed at them from this as possible, and partially this is because every now and then a writer hands something in that would result in RAGE on the forums, but never makes it into an offcial product.
Really? Isn't that a bit silly?
Whats the point of an Open Beta if... they can't talk about anything... with the Beta-testers...
In any case, the vast majority of people here are adults, and have paid cash to participate. I can understand the fact that GW shuts down ideas, and I understand my position in "the great chain".
If they show up and say "No" this particular idea- it would cool if they could justify it, but I would understand it just as well if they didn't.
I think more fan hate would be directed towards them if they end up brushing people aside than just talking over the ideas. Because ultimately, in the talking over the ideas side, they'll only alienate I would say less than half of the people involved [those who didn't agree with them, and don't understand that some stuff is already written, done, paid for- can't be changed. Limitations such as page number and word count limits. Lore restrictions. A final veto from GW. Players that might reclaim a certain "right" for any idea they came up with that finds itself in the books... which is frankly ridiculous, I am sure its part of the conditions of the open beta or some such]
Anyone who cant quite understand that should not be doing the Beta in the first place- and is likely only here to rage anyways. I believe, from what I've seen so far, that almost everybody thats actively posting really want this to work, one way or another. And some people that aren't posting are also cheering for them.
There's always going to ragers, so alienating the non-raging community as well is not a terribly good idea.
So, the NDA means the actual playtesters or the writers can't discuss the Open Beta with us- but a spokesperson should be assigned to bridge gaps between the players and the creative crew.
How DO you become a Play-tester anyways!?
They have some really odd restrictions that GW came up with. I can't say too much without revealing the people who were not actually following the rules of hte NDA and talked to me, (which would be a bad thing)
To use an example that was 'announced' FFG made somethign like 7 tries before GW approved the battle cry of FFG's in house SM chapter.
I suspect that FFG would be happy to be more transparent, but GW does not permit it, based on my own experiances dealing with GW. This is the company that seems to be offended by the idea that players might learn about thier products and buy them and fought a lengthy campeign of cease and desist letters against fan sites who disuss FFG's products.
Edited by BaronIveaghThis is the company that seems to be offended by the idea that players might learn about thier products and buy them and fought a lengthy campeign of cease and desist letters against fan sites who disuss FFG's products.
Wait what? I am familiar with Damnatus case, GW IP crusade against sites selling "not-40k" models and bits, but I missed this. Please, do you care to elaborate or point me to some useful link?
Wait what? I am familiar with Damnatus case, GW IP crusade against sites selling "not-40k" models and bits, but I missed this. Please, do you care to elaborate or point me to some useful link?
It's been a few years. Here's a link to Dark Reign and our reaction at the time to getting one.
Yup, GW tried to shut us down back in the day. Thankfully it didn't stick
I dont understand the stranglehold the GW has on its IP's. They have explicitly stated that they are a model company why not give story control to someone else while they just focus on the mini's?
Because all they really have are their IPs. People buy their models because of the IPs, and they must retain creative control over them, otherwise it compromises their ownership over them.
just seems silly to me but then again so long as players keep supporting their model nothing will change.